I’m back for a bit after a crazy period of working on my thesis, and because I’m trying to take a quick OPM tour I have not read this entire thread and all of its back-and-forth, so apologies if I’m repeating someone else’s advice. But since this is a commonly asked question, I will add that on my tour of a few reasonably snazzy primary care internal medicine programs, a completely unscientific and reasonably small sampling, I have seen relatively few of either category, but I have seen several D.O.s and no caribbean grads.
I have seen foreign grads but they have been doctors who are actually from other countries–ie. graduates of a European or Latin American medical school designed for people of that country. I suspect that academic program director tend to prefer many of these folks–who often have research backgrounds and extremely good medical skills–over US citizen Caribbean grads. I think it is a mistake to think that “foreign graduates” is synonymous with graduates of Caribbean schools; there are very accomplished doctors coming from other countries who also fit into this category and who nonetheless must complete a residency. There are considerably more people from elsewhere applying to the Match, and they match at about the same rate as US citizens educated abroad; hence the “foreign grads” at the most competitive residencies are more likely to be graduates of medical schools in Berlin, Dublin, Rio de Janeiro, etc.
The D.O. people can get some love in primary care programs at least, based on who I’m seeing in interviews, although I don’t know what their acceptance rate is, and I definitely do not know which programs are better regarded than others.
This statistical breakdown gives the details: [ http://www.nrmp.org/2006advdata.pdf ] Again, US citizens who are foreign grads are a smaller number of the foreign applicants, and match at about the same rate as other foreign grads. Osteopaths’ matching rates are considerably superior to both, though considerably less than US allopathic seniors. Make sure also to note the number in each category who withdrew from the match or did not submit a match list.
This does not account for variation in the schools within these categories, of course, nor for variation in the kinds of programs to which both sets of people applied. However, were I a US citizen considering a foreign school I would be sobered by these results.
The NRMP–the organization that runs the Match–has lots of other statistical breakdowns about match rates, factors involved, etc, etc–peruse their site at http://www.nrmp.org for more.
My own observations of course are not actual reliable data but only anecdote based on casual observation; caveat emptor, ymmv, etc etc.
And remember, the number one thing I hear on the residency trail is, “We really want to make sure that you’re a good fit here, that we’re going to enjoy working with you”. i.e., medical culture is all about working together and minimizing conflict even with colleagues who you think are dolts. I’m so pleased that many of our OPM members instinctively understand this rule of medical culture. For those of us, like me, who sometimes have difficulty with this skill, it deserves concerted early attention and practice.
j
Thanks for the input, guys. I appreciate it. I think this thread is really starting to flesh out some of the more important details and distinctions. Not all, or even many, apply to the original purpose of highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of Ross/St. George compared to osteopathic schools, but there’s clearly been some strong attempts.
And sometimes it’s good to set the tone early to rid the thread of those who’d rather derail it than contribute in a productive manner. Keep up the good work.
I’ll do my best to address each response.
- joewright Said:
I'm back for a bit after a crazy period of working on my thesis, and because I'm trying to take a quick OPM tour I have not read this entire thread and all of its back-and-forth, so apologies if I'm repeating someone else's advice. But since this is a commonly asked question, I will add that on my tour of a few reasonably snazzy primary care internal medicine programs, a completely unscientific and reasonably small sampling, I have seen relatively few of either category, but I have seen several D.O.s and no caribbean grads.
I have seen foreign grads but they have been doctors who are actually from other countries--ie. graduates of a European or Latin American medical school designed for people of that country. I suspect that academic program director tend to prefer many of these folks--who often have research backgrounds and extremely good medical skills--over US citizen Caribbean grads. I think it is a mistake to think that "foreign graduates" is synonymous with graduates of Caribbean schools; there are very accomplished doctors coming from other countries who also fit into this category and who nonetheless must complete a residency. There are considerably more people from elsewhere applying to the Match, and they match at about the same rate as US citizens educated abroad; hence the "foreign grads" at the most competitive residencies are more likely to be graduates of medical schools in Berlin, Dublin, Rio de Janeiro, etc.
The D.O. people can get some love in primary care programs at least, based on who I'm seeing in interviews, although I don't know what their acceptance rate is, and I definitely do not know which programs are better regarded than others.
This statistical breakdown gives the details: [ http://www.nrmp.org/2006advdata.pdf ] Again, US citizens who are foreign grads are a smaller number of the foreign applicants, and match at about the same rate as other foreign grads. Osteopaths' matching rates are considerably superior to both, though considerably less than US allopathic seniors. Make sure also to note the number in each category who withdrew from the match or did not submit a match list.
This does not account for variation in the schools within these categories, of course, nor for variation in the kinds of programs to which both sets of people applied. However, were I a US citizen considering a foreign school I would be sobered by these results.
The NRMP--the organization that runs the Match--has lots of other statistical breakdowns about match rates, factors involved, etc, etc--peruse their site at http://www.nrmp.org for more.
My own observations of course are not actual reliable data but only anecdote based on casual observation; caveat emptor, ymmv, etc etc.
And remember, the number one thing I hear on the residency trail is, "We really want to make sure that you're a good fit here, that we're going to enjoy working with you". i.e., medical culture is all about working together and minimizing conflict even with colleagues who you think are dolts. I'm so pleased that many of our OPM members instinctively understand this rule of medical culture. For those of us, like me, who sometimes have difficulty with this skill, it deserves concerted early attention and practice.
j
I have seen foreign grads but they have been doctors who are actually from other countries--ie. graduates of a European or Latin American medical school designed for people of that country. I suspect that academic program director tend to prefer many of these folks--who often have research backgrounds and extremely good medical skills--over US citizen Caribbean grads. I think it is a mistake to think that "foreign graduates" is synonymous with graduates of Caribbean schools; there are very accomplished doctors coming from other countries who also fit into this category and who nonetheless must complete a residency. There are considerably more people from elsewhere applying to the Match, and they match at about the same rate as US citizens educated abroad; hence the "foreign grads" at the most competitive residencies are more likely to be graduates of medical schools in Berlin, Dublin, Rio de Janeiro, etc.
The D.O. people can get some love in primary care programs at least, based on who I'm seeing in interviews, although I don't know what their acceptance rate is, and I definitely do not know which programs are better regarded than others.
This statistical breakdown gives the details: [ http://www.nrmp.org/2006advdata.pdf ] Again, US citizens who are foreign grads are a smaller number of the foreign applicants, and match at about the same rate as other foreign grads. Osteopaths' matching rates are considerably superior to both, though considerably less than US allopathic seniors. Make sure also to note the number in each category who withdrew from the match or did not submit a match list.
This does not account for variation in the schools within these categories, of course, nor for variation in the kinds of programs to which both sets of people applied. However, were I a US citizen considering a foreign school I would be sobered by these results.
The NRMP--the organization that runs the Match--has lots of other statistical breakdowns about match rates, factors involved, etc, etc--peruse their site at http://www.nrmp.org for more.
My own observations of course are not actual reliable data but only anecdote based on casual observation; caveat emptor, ymmv, etc etc.
And remember, the number one thing I hear on the residency trail is, "We really want to make sure that you're a good fit here, that we're going to enjoy working with you". i.e., medical culture is all about working together and minimizing conflict even with colleagues who you think are dolts. I'm so pleased that many of our OPM members instinctively understand this rule of medical culture. For those of us, like me, who sometimes have difficulty with this skill, it deserves concerted early attention and practice.
j
Let's start with Joe. You bring up some excellent points:
1. Quality of the residency. This is something I've been struggling with for a few weeks now. It's easy to see that Ross/St. George grads are landing far more allopathic specialty positions, but when it comes to primary care are they keeping up in terms of quality? I appreciate the anecdotes Joe, but we don't even have to resort to that because we have a complete breakdown of exactly where these grads (osteo & SGU/Ross) are matching thanks to their websites. What's difficult to understand and interpret, for me at least, is the prestige of these programs.
For example, when I saw that one of the Touro matches was to UCSF-Fresno, I immediately assumed that was awesome -- UCSF, you can't beat that. But then I was informed that UCSF-Fresno's residency program in IM is near the bottom of the barrel, and has nothing in common at all with the UCSF home IM program. How, exactly, does one sort this stuff out? Similarly, when I talked to a SGU grad that had finished his residency at in IM at Hopkins Bayview before his cardio fellowship (http://www.med.yale.edu/intmed/cardio/faculty /goldstein.html) I was thinking to myself, damn it's possible to land a residency at Hopkins! But then I found out that Hopkins Bayview is worlds apart from their main IM program at JHH.
Point is, the data is there, so it just takes some work to sort out which is better, and I think it's an important issue to consider.
2. With regard to the statistical breakdown provided by NRMP, unfortunately this is of absolute no use as applied to the topic of this thread. Attempting to deduce the match rate for Ross/SGU from the US IMG Match Rate is akin to trying to deduce the admission rate to your school, Harvard, from the admission rate of all premed students to all US schools (~50%). There are far, far too many schools included in the mix -- 30-some caribbean schools?, all the schools in poland, ireland, australia, russia, checkoslovakia, england & wherever else they're finding refuge. Ross/SGU students make up such a small fraction.
In fact, the schools themselves are very forthcoming with this information, which is near 99-100%, including the pre-match which is available to DO's and SGU/Ross grads alike. So, this parameter is a wash as applied to this particular thread.
mdjd
- croooz Said:
One thing to also consider is there are more residency spots available to DO students than MD. Very few allo programs are completely shut down to osteo grads, however I'm not aware of too many osteo programs that will take allos. This trend is changing and by the time you graduate it might not be a consideration. If you have an idea what specialty you are looking at then perhaps a search of the residency programs might help determine your future.
croooz, your best bet at rehabilitating yourself after your poor behavior earlier in this thread is to share the info the Saba grads sent in their emails, as jdroger suggested.
Your post above highlights your profound lack of understanding of DO residency positions. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, osteopathic residency positions are not even desired by osteopaths. These are, in general, low-volume pyramid programs that only fill with osteopaths who were unable to perform at a level on the USMLE (or COMLEX, in a few cases) sufficient to gain acceptance into an ACGME (allopathic) program. Graduates of these osteopathic programs are ineligible to sit for the MD board exams, and are subsequently routinely denied hospital privileges and job opportunities.
To suggest that DO programs might soon be available to MD grads is like opening up chiropractic or podiatry residency programs (if such a thing even exists) to MD grads. No MD grad in their right mind would ever accept one.
- efex101 Said:
Another thing you need to be aware of.....find out approximately how much "time" their students (now talking about overseas schools) take OFF of are allowed OFF to study for Step 1. If a schools is boasting X or Y Step 1 pass rates you need to know are the students taking YEARS OFF to study? or is this pass rate right after the first two years because there is a huge difference. I mean heck anyone can do extremely well on Step 1 if they take a year to study for it! but you may not want to take a whole year off and hence need to know what the facts are.
DO trained students do not have to take Step 1 so this may be why they are not providing the info. You can get this info DO pass rates for Step 1 on the USMLE website.
DO trained students do not have to take Step 1 so this may be why they are not providing the info. You can get this info DO pass rates for Step 1 on the USMLE website.
hmmmm... not quite sure what to make of this, efex. In fact, what you've posted seems to be paradoxical to a certain extent.
Allow me, if I may, to elaborate.
First, we have to assume, as you assert, that more time off = an "extremely" high Step 1 score. I think I'll go ahead and disagree with this. (BTW, you're not alone in this view, as I've heard it parroted many times from US grads who failed to perform well on Step 1, while those from, e.g., India, crushed it. i.e., it's a popular U.S. allopathic grad excuse for poor performance.)
Here are a number of tidbits of evidence to support my position:
1. We've all known, or at least heard of, a person who failed to even pass Step 1 after several attempts. If a year or more of multiple attempts does not equal a passing score in these cases, then it's impossible that "heck, anyone can do extremely well on Step 1 if they take a year to study for it!"
2. Stanford, for example, offers a 5-year curriculum to those who want it. Allowing a year off from medical studies after their 2nd year does not make this school inferior in any way. And these students are free to pursue whatever objective they'd like during this time. If they want to spend a year studying for Step 1 that's their perogative. I fail to see how this is a black mark on a medical program.
3. I'm completely guessing here, but given the amount of leeway and hand-holding at US MD programs, I would venture to guess that Mayo would be more than happy to push you back a year if you offered to go ahead and crush Step 1.
4. All of this is neither here nor there, because I'm fairly certain Ross/SGU & DO schools want to their grads to finish on time to collect their tuition, and doubt they encourage delay.
So, either way, this parameter is also a wash as applied to this thread.
To address your second point, although DO students are not required to take Step 1, NMRP provides the pass/score info to the individual DO schools of those who do choose to take the exam. But getting this info from these schools is like pulling teeth, and in many cases proved downright impossible.
- mdjd Said:
croooz, your best bet at rehabilitating yourself after your poor behavior earlier in this thread is to share the info the Saba grads sent in their emails, as jdroger suggested.
mdjd,
You are not a moderator here. So while you may berate people into not posting your demands are empty. Everyone is not out to get you and every comment is not a personal attack against you. Good luck to you. I'm certain you'll make the right decision for yourself.
Go to www.valuemd.com it's an IMG/FMG forum and they might be better qualified to give you info about Ross vs St George. There are threads on it already. Seems like a common question.
- whuds Said:
Sorry I'm late, But I think DO is a good option but the two Caribbean schools you have mention are very good choices and no matter what some believe here ( there was a time not too long ago there was action against FMG/IMG grads but that has gone away due to the shortage and all the grads) Caribbean is a good option. I endorse it only after looking at all the options/choices you have, I have the upmost respect for DO Doctors, Mary/Linda/Old Man Dave really but personally I wanted MD, no not cause of the initials I wanted the philosophy too, yes we are being taught to treat the whole person just as DO, but DO goes way farther into other areas you do not study in MD school. Nothing wrong with that but I always feel you have to agree with it to go to a DO school and there are some things I do not agree with, that said I want Primary care and that will be ( already have offers) fine for me when it comes to specialties and competitive residencies then the Caribbean hampers you some but completely, you see I personally know some program directors one from Ross and another from SGU both have said they would pick a qualified Caribbean student for residencies, this flies in the face of what others will post but you have to understand Caribbean grads are gaining ground and are showing up in the programs it was bound to start happining and it is. Main thing is to understand you still may be at some dissadvantage to US grads but after residency starts nothing really you are a Doc and thats all to it.
Please look at your choices and then make the decision you are happy with, whats right for you,
So Go DO if you know you will be happy and do well if not then go Caribbean what matters the most is you not us, not friends but YOU, it's your life and if the goal is to be a physician you can do that from a DO or a Caribbean school.
Please no offense to any one I respect all of you.
Bill.
Please look at your choices and then make the decision you are happy with, whats right for you,
So Go DO if you know you will be happy and do well if not then go Caribbean what matters the most is you not us, not friends but YOU, it's your life and if the goal is to be a physician you can do that from a DO or a Caribbean school.
Please no offense to any one I respect all of you.
Bill.
Just to sum up for the OP here,
DO has a philosophy different then MD so I wanted MD it was a personal choice I made of which road, due to my grades before it seemed my only choices would be DO or Caribbean so I choose the Caribbean.
Now the Big 4 can get you into just about anything but the primary care area is the easiest to get into from the Caribbean.
DO can get you primary care even easier and less US hassles for the residency and more choices that may be easier to get into, but after residency both will be Equal.
I hope that helps with the other I posted.
Bill
I believe that there is a tremendous difference in having six weeks for study for an exam versus a year. One example that you may be familiar with is the MCAT. If you had one full year of time to study this will more than likely translate into a better score than someone that may have six weeks.
I have not heard of any US medical school that will allow you “one year” or even six months to crush the boards. We usually get six weeks and that is it. Now, if you FAIL the boards then sure you may get an additional two months to study but again this is not a full year. After so many tries some schools will let you go.
My point is that TIME is important for non-trads and how this may affect either applying international and taking a year or six months off to study (like many IMG/FMG do) or re-applying here to DO/MD and see what happens. I am not saying that all overseas schools provide a year off to study but I hear that many IMG/FMG do this. Again, I posted this as something you might want to ask. We can agree to disagree regarding time spent studying and correlation with step scores.
- efex101 Said:
I believe that there is a tremendous difference in having six weeks for study for an exam versus a year. One example that you may be familiar with is the MCAT. If you had one full year of time to study this will more than likely translate into a better score than someone that may have six weeks.
I have not heard of any US medical school that will allow you "one year" or even six months to crush the boards. We usually get six weeks and that is it. Now, if you FAIL the boards then sure you may get an additional two months to study but again this is not a full year. After so many tries some schools will let you go.
My point is that TIME is important for non-trads and how this may affect either applying international and taking a year or six months off to study (like many IMG/FMG do) or re-applying here to DO/MD and see what happens. I am not saying that all overseas schools provide a year off to study but I hear that many IMG/FMG do this. Again, I posted this as something you might want to ask. We can agree to disagree regarding time spent studying and correlation with step scores.
I have not heard of any US medical school that will allow you "one year" or even six months to crush the boards. We usually get six weeks and that is it. Now, if you FAIL the boards then sure you may get an additional two months to study but again this is not a full year. After so many tries some schools will let you go.
My point is that TIME is important for non-trads and how this may affect either applying international and taking a year or six months off to study (like many IMG/FMG do) or re-applying here to DO/MD and see what happens. I am not saying that all overseas schools provide a year off to study but I hear that many IMG/FMG do this. Again, I posted this as something you might want to ask. We can agree to disagree regarding time spent studying and correlation with step scores.
There is a good reason why some take extra time, they are still poor students, I have a couple class mates that right now cannot answer basic questions, Example an Xray of a PE was shown the other day, this classmate raised their hand and said what is that? Th professor perplexed said what do you mean? She said what is that in the Picture? I'm "confused" ( it was the pulmonary artery with a huge clot) she went on to say that she thinks that is one of the lungs but please tell us what we are looking at! The professor then went on to an anatomy lesson for 20 freaking minutes! I mean it took me about 2 minutes to recognize the arteries and viens and the appreciate the whole xray but this "party animal" did not "understand" the basic anatomy. This is some of the students I have gone to school with, no they were not able to get into a US medschool and this shows why, I have worked my but off and some others here have too, and we all plan to take the USLME within 3 months of Graduation, so July or August, but some of these people have already said not till Sept or Oct at the earliest since "They were not taught right" LOL no they partied and did not study while here. So in defense its the poor students not the school, Please.........
OK makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification!
I wanted to tell you you are right though, if a student applies to the Caribbean with poor grades there is a reason they are poor and being accepted does not mean they will make it to be a Doctor. That is clear I think the numbers are as high as 30% do not make it in the Caribbean.
It’s the one thing you and others point out I just wanted to clarify it’s more the students than the place.
- mdjd Said:
1. Quality of the residency. This is something I've been struggling with for a few weeks now. It's easy to see that Ross/St. George grads are landing far more allopathic specialty positions, but when it comes to primary care are they keeping up in terms of quality? I appreciate the anecdotes Joe, but we don't even have to resort to that because we have a complete breakdown of exactly where these grads (osteo & SGU/Ross) are matching thanks to their websites. What's difficult to understand and interpret, for me at least, is the prestige of these programs.
OK, so I've painstakingly looked through each and every allopathic internal medicine residency program that Touro osteopathic students matched at this year, and compared this list to SGU's match list, to see if there was any possibility of determining whether osteopathic students are getting higher quality primary care residencies, as Joe suggested above. Honestly, I expected it to be a completely subjective comparison, as it's just too hard to objectively compare one residency program to another by name alone.
But it turned out to be far easier than I imagined, because almost without exception SGU students matched at the exact same hospitals and programs the 19 IM Touro students matched at! It's pretty easy to compare quality when the matches are identical.
Here are the results. Only 2 programs matched by the osteopathic students were not represented in SGU's list. And these 2 certainly don't appear to be snazzy -- are they even university-based?:
Kaiser, Northern California -- Touro/SGU
St. Mary's Hospital -- Touro/SGU
Indiana Univ. -- Touro/SGU
Univ. of Texas, Galvaston -- Touro/SGU (2005)
San Joaquin General Hospital -- Touro/SGU
Maimonides Medical Center -- Touro/SGU
Virginia Commonwealth Univ. -- Touro/SGU (Psych, Neuro, Peds)
Alamada County Medical Center -- Touro/SGU
UCSF Fresno -- Touro/SGU (FM)
University of Southern Alabama -- Touro/SGU (Peds)
St. Josephs Hospital, AZ -- Touro/SGU (Peds, Neuro)
Virginia Mason Medical Center -- Touro
Legacy Emanuel/Good Samaritan, OR -- Touro
After wading through all of this, there just seems to be no basis at all for going the osteopathic route over SGU. I'm just not seeing it. Lower Step 1 pass rates, lower allopathic specialty matches, and worse primary care residencies for osteopaths... Is there anything at all left?
- mdjd Said:
Also, one last thing I want to add into the mix, is that I absolutely do not want to end up in an osteopathic residency program, as I understand that those can severely limit your employment options and hospital privileges. If I go DO I feel like I'd have to bust my hump and land an absolutely sweet residency like OldManDave, or else end up in an allopathic Family Medicine program.
There's just no way in the world I'm risking being stuck in a DO residency program.
There's just no way in the world I'm risking being stuck in a DO residency program.
Thanks...I think...actually, less than 45% of DO-grads do into DO post-grad training. With but a few exceptions, you are not at a competitive disadvantage applying to ACGME programs as a DO. Yes, you will hear lots of folks whine & repeat story after story, but I truly believe most it is hogwash - myth! And, most of the chickadees chirping out these unfounded rumors are either pre-meds or current med students, who are not even in a position to know anyhow.
I can say this because I know - actually know - DO-grads in several of the ACGME programs that allegedly do not accept DOs. At least 3 from my own grad class went into Derm, 1 into ophthomology, 2 or 3 into ortho and several in GenSurg - all ACGME programs.
- slb Said:
I'd really like to learn *some* of OMM (that which has studies to back it) - and I do like the DO philosophy. But it can be a hard decision. Just wanted to throw a little support the OP's way. I definitely don't want to insult anybody on here who is a DO - lord knows I have nothing but respect for Linda and Dave, et.al. But I think that a highly skeptical person (such as myself, and apparently the OP) can have a bit of a hard time with certain aspects of OMM.
Offend me? You must be kidding! LOL - don't loose any sleep worrying about that! Regarding OMM/Cranial & evidence: in my personal opinion, cranial is a load of shit - sorry Linda. But OMM most definitively has merit & used within appropriate limits on appropriately selected patients, can do a lot of good. Can it cure cancer - hell no. But, it can most definitely ease back pain, loosen up injured muscles & quite a bit more.
Evidence for the efficacy of OMM - very thin, but there are lots of efforts ongoing to amend this problem. But, physicians are notoriously poor researchers - true of both DOs & MDs - ask any academic Ph.D.
Evidence for cranial - essentially vaporous.
However, I feel compelled to enlighten you a bit further - evidence for mainstream western medicine is largely undecided as well. In fact, wholly 50% plus of what you will learn in med school is flat out wrong - we just don't know which parts. And, for virtually any question in medicine, you can find equal volumes of "evidence" to support, refute or demonstrate equivocal.
So, even though there is a lot more "evidence" in mainstream med, the questions are far far far from answered. In fact, we are most likely several...make that many generations of physicians away from definitively answering our questions.
The downside of what we currently refer to as "evidence based medicine" is that we try to substitute probabilities & population statistics for our own lacking of understanding of physiology at the most fundamental of levels. It is sort of like tryin to look upstream on a white-water river & use what you see to predict what will occur downstream without knowing the bottom topology. With some degree of certainty, you can make some inferences; however, it is the bottom topology that drives what the stream does & not knowing will always leave you guessing in the end. Same goes with medicine...we are still looking upstream & hoping to guess correctly downstream.
- efex101 Said:
I will give you my opinion on your original question...IF this was ME, I would go Caribbean. I will try to explain why and hope this makes sense. I never ever had heard of DO until I started hanging out with the original OPM listserve. I soon came to the realization that OMM was not for me and I just did not "truly believe" in it. Wrong or right that is the way I feel/think. Now, I do know that osteopathic physicians are excellent/competent/carin g physicians just as allopathic physicians are and they get jobs all over the country just like allos do. To me it is more of a personal issue. Also, because I had never heard of a DO and where I was at at the time DO's were scarce (South) some folks that I asked had no clue what DO's are. To me this was not acceptable...If I busted my arse for 7+ years going through medical school and residency I did not want ONE person to question the letters after my name. This may sound vain and immature but it is the way it is. I want to be recognized for my accomplishments no matter where I end up at (most likely in the South) and would have ZERO tolerance for having to explain to anyone what DO stands for. So in that light for me applying DO was just NOT an option period. So if I was in your shoes right now and knowing that yes, it is harder to land residencies in the US as an IMG/FMG and that it is an uphill battle I would still go the foreign route. There are uphill battles from both standpoints IMHO....some programs here do not readily accept DO students, and some programs here do not readily accept international students. Although these may be in the minority they do exist and NO I am not going to search for which programs these are but they are out there. Good luck!
Absolutely! To each his/her own! Everyone here must, for themselves, clearly define what it is that they are seeking. Believe me, speaking from damned near the end of the training trial, there is waaaaaaaaay too much work, expense & tribulations to sustain yourself if you choose incorrectly. I have no issues at all for someone choosing not to go DO...just as if they were - as in Terry - go DO only...or as in Judy & Bill - MD only.
For me, I did not give two hoots about the initials behind my illegible signature. I interviewed wherever I got an invite & choose the program I felt was the best fit. I choose very well, did very well, landed an elite residency & have never looked back. It is all in what YOU make it!
- mdjd Said:
Your post above highlights your profound lack of understanding of DO residency positions. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, osteopathic residency positions are not even desired by osteopaths. These are, in general, low-volume pyramid programs that only fill with osteopaths who were unable to perform at a level on the USMLE (or COMLEX, in a few cases) sufficient to gain acceptance into an ACGME (allopathic) program. Graduates of these osteopathic programs are ineligible to sit for the MD board exams, and are subsequently routinely denied hospital privileges and job opportunities.
Actually, you need to fine tune your own data. And, I think you have a couple of issues confused here...As a DO, you do not have to take any part of the USMLE to gain privileges or sit for specialty boards. There are AOA & ACGME specialty boards for all subspecialties. And, the COMLEX is fully & legally equivalent in all 50 states for physician licensure. Nor are you required to take the USMLE to be able to train in an ACGME program - I did not take it and I am clearly in an ACGME program.
Regarding taking specialty board exams - you take the exam - either ACGME or AOA - tangent upon the type of program you trained in. For example, I am a DO, but trained in an ACGME program. I will never be able to sit the AOA anesthesiology boards, but will sit the ACGME anesthesiology boards. Possession of either one is considered equivalent & more than adequate to obtain privileges at any hospital or insurance company. Furthermore, for an employer or insurer to deny me privileges based upon my degree or possession of AOA credentials, as opposed to ACGME, is illegal & considered discriminatory hiring practices & potentially litagible - this info provided to us by an attorney in my med school jurisprudence course.
ACGME programs are completely open to both MD & DO grads because they are funded by CMS - the kind folks that fund & administer MediCare & MedicAide. They pay for the training of physicians in this country & since the DO & MD degrees are legally equivalent, they cannot discriminate.
- mdjd Said:
To suggest that DO programs might soon be available to MD grads is like opening up chiropractic or podiatry residency programs (if such a thing even exists) to MD grads. No MD grad in their right mind would ever accept one.
There is a movement ongoing in the AOA, and it appears to be gaining momentum, to open AOA programs to MDs. And, there is significant interest expressed by GPs in the MD community in training in OMM. We had several come through KCOM while I was a med student to learn OMM. And, two of the MDs I did rotations with during med school took periodic sabbaticals to train in OMM at Michigan St.
Yes, the AOA training programs do tend to be smaller & occur more frequently in community-sized hospitals, but that does not necessarily equate to poor quality. Most definitely, there are some shit-programs out there, under the auspices of the ACGME, at large hospitals - I know of someone who survived the anesth program at Wayne State who could tell you stories that would make your hair fall out about the abyssmal quality of his training.
So, before you reply from your ivory tower...research & substantiate your claims. You have bagged several on here for posting their opinions as facts...and now you are guilty of the same offense. I can speak from actual knowledge - first hand encounters - maybe you could cool your jets until you are able to do the same. You asked for folks input & as most people here are pre-meds, they can give mostly opinions, footnotes & tidbits that they have picked up here & other places. YOU have to research, read & learn to sort the wheat from the chaf. Most importantly, you have to make your own decisions eventually.
- OldManDave Said:
Thanks...I think...actually, less than 45% of DO-grads do into DO post-grad training. With but a few exceptions, you are not at a competitive disadvantage applying to ACGME programs as a DO. Yes, you will hear lots of folks whine & repeat story after story, but I truly believe most it is hogwash - myth! And, most of the chickadees chirping out these unfounded rumors are either pre-meds or current med students, who are not even in a position to know anyhow.
I can say this because I know - actually know - DO-grads in several of the ACGME programs that allegedly do not accept DOs. At least 3 from my own grad class went into Derm, 1 into ophthomology, 2 or 3 into ortho and several in GenSurg - all ACGME programs.
Dave,
First, thanks a lot for your input. It's much appreciated.
Second, I really hate to beat everyone down that includes anecdotal evidence, but I really want to emphasize that if you do include it, it's got to be absolutely accurate. There are just tons of threads of misinformation, and I'm going out of my way here to rid this particular thread of any misinformation or propaganda. (Yes, yes, that even means the very founder of this organization :)).
So, let's start with this: "At least 3 from my own grad class went into Derm ... - all ACGME programs." I'm going to go out on a limb here and call bullshit on this one. I really hope I'm wrong, but from a quick Google search here's what I've found -- only 1 Kirksville student matched allopathic derm between 2000-2004, and he wasn't even in your class. (http://www.dermboard.com/docs/2003-2004.htm). Now, there are a few students that matched allopathic derm that aren't on those lists, but I find it hard to believe all three purported Kirskville students from your class remain in hiding from the derm match discussion board.
I have a feeling what you meant to say was that 3 students from your class matched AOA derm.
Now, again, this anecdotal evidence is always fun to include, but it doesn't really have a lot of application to this particular thread, because it would be just as easy to point out that SGU had an allopathic derm match last year. Or that a Ross grad matched ophtho just a couple of weeks ago, or the AUC grad that matched neurosurgery a couple of weeks ago... Doesn't really help me decide which way to go -- DO or SGU/Ross. See what I mean?
Finally, I'm tempted to go after your statement about DO's "not at a competitive disadvantage applying to ACGME programs" but I think I'll hold off for now, because it really takes no more than a quick glance at the match lists to see that the *quality* of matches are not very good. And the very same could be said for the carib schools. There's so much evidence to attack that statement that we'd run out of room here.
- OldManDave Said:
Actually, you need to fine tune your own data. And, I think you have a couple of issues confused here...As a DO, you do not have to take any part of the USMLE to gain privileges or sit for specialty boards. There are AOA & ACGME specialty boards for all subspecialties. And, the COMLEX is fully & legally equivalent in all 50 states for physician licensure. Nor are you required to take the USMLE to be able to train in an ACGME program - I did not take it and I am clearly in an ACGME program.
Dave, none of what you've posted above is inconsistent in any way with what I posted and what you've quoted. No fine tuning needed -- I think you misread what I posted.
- OldManDave Said:
Regarding taking specialty board exams - you take the exam - either ACGME or AOA - tangent upon the type of program you trained in. For example, I am a DO, but trained in an ACGME program. I will never be able to sit the AOA anesthesiology boards, but will sit the ACGME anesthesiology boards.
This is also what I just posted above.
- OldManDave Said:
Possession of either one is considered equivalent & more than adequate to obtain privileges at any hospital or insurance company. Furthermore, for an employer or insurer to deny me privileges based upon my degree or possession of AOA credentials, as opposed to ACGME, is illegal & considered discriminatory hiring practices & potentially litagible - this info provided to us by an attorney in my med school jurisprudence course.
Now we've got two possible scenarios here:
1. Your attorney is really, really bad; or
2. (this one's more likely) You heard what you wanted to hear in your med law class.
Here's why this is so, so wrong: Osteopathy is not a suspect classification, nor is it a fundamental right. You better believe it's OK for hospitals or insurance companies to discriminate against you. Hell, even government-owned hospitals can discriminate against you when it comes to hiring. For some reason this bad information about osteopaths having some sort of protected right to be hired has been floated around like crazy. Here's an analogy to help you understand -- let's even take it to an extreme. If I own a hospital and I want to hire only Stanford-trained MD's I have an absolute right to do just that. I can even hang a sign on the door that says, "Only fancy-learners need apply -- we don't want any of you non-top-5-type-grads around these parts!" You think you can ground liability on the basis of my discriminating against say, Univ. of Michigan grads? Not a chance. Same exact law applies to DO's, and carib MD's for that matter. It's not as if I'm discriminating on the basis of a suspect classification, such as race or national origin -- *then* we'd have a problem, and you'd have a case. Or even a quasi-suspect classification such as gender would be prohibited. But if I want to discriminate against osteopaths or caribbean grads on the sole basis that I feel they have inferior credentials, I have an absolute right to do just that, all day long.
It's late now and all of this law-talk has made me sleepy, so I'll take care of the rest of your post tomorrow.
- mdjd Said:
Now we've got two possible scenarios here:
1. Your attorney is really, really bad; or
2. (this one's more likely) You heard what you wanted to hear in your med law class.
1. Your attorney is really, really bad; or
2. (this one's more likely) You heard what you wanted to hear in your med law class.
3. (This one's even more likely) You're wrong.
People can and do sue for discrimination on almost any grounds, often much weaker grounds than what OMD cited.
Dave, regarding OMM--just curious. Have you ever experienced cranio-sacral therapy as performed by an experienced practitioner?
Thanks OMD - I didn’t really think I’d offend you, but I think that on the internet it is sometimes best to err on the side of extreme politeness… to the point of pre-emptively apologizing.