I am a senior at an undergraduate institution in NY and I thought I'd share an interesting observation regarding Ostepathic Schools and Caribbean Schools.

Certainly it is hard to put up a strong argument that Caribbean schools and US allopathic schools are on the same academic playing field. However, as we have all seen in the endless DO vs. Caribbean arguments, the osteopathic schools-Carribbean argument is far more alive.

In this regard, I have seen that American science professors have a strong preference to DO schools, and not Caribbean MD schools. However, what interests me is not what their preference is, but how they have aligned themselves with that preference.

Usually, my professors say that "it is best to stay in the US". This statement is based not on any inherent strength of osteopathic schools, but simply on the fact that the school is in the United States.

This fact troubled me, as I thought that two otherwise equal group of schools (DO Schools & Caribbean MD schools, particularly schools like SGU) were not being treated equally not because DO schools had any particular benefit, but solely because Caribbean schools were not in the US. Hence the term "ethnocentrism".

US Allopathic alternatives exist not only in the Caribbean but in the UK, continental Europe, Australia, etc. Yet many are considered inferior not because of any inherent lacking, but merely because of their location.

I would like to get feedback on this idea from any one who has insight on what I am trying to say.

more of of the problem relies in the system. the stateside schools (md and do) act like drug reps. they wine and dine all the premed professors once a year. the caribbean schools would never spend the extra money to do that because they are all about bottom line.

secondly, many premed advisors are students that couldnt make it into a stateside schools. they then did the famous "go to grad school to improve your application." that didnt work either so now they teach undergrad. many are the ones that didnt have enough guts to come out to the carib and get their dream. so naturally, they will be biased against it which in my opinion is unethical.

__________________
Dr. Scott
Internal Medicine
PGY-1

AUC Forum Moderator

There are legitimate reasons to stay in the US which have nothing to do with "ethnocentrism'..attending a US DO school gives you and your degree an established american based lobbying and organizational support structure.As the number of DOs in the US has skyrocketed in recent years this may be of value.It also offers access to DO only residency programs in many specialties.This all may not mean much to you but they are real advantages to some.I think that the caribbean option is great but there are some pluses to graduating from a US school.

I think many good points have been made. The premed advisor at my undergrad college was one of those - i.e. wanted to do med school but couldn't get in despite grad school etc. He actively discouraged people from pursuing their dreams including people with good GPAs and MCATs. There is definitely a component of bias when premed advisors lead students toward or away from certain schools.

I think what sgu06 was trying to bring to light is the concept of egocentrism. Because a school is located in the U.S. means it must be better than any other school located outside the U.S. The U.S. is notorious for this sort of egocentrism. I feel for my colleagues who graduated from Oxford and Cambridge and who have reached to the top of their specialty and now have to restart from internship just to practice in the U.S. It's a sad thing. There are way better medical schools outside the U.S. than many of the schools in the U.S. so I'm not sure where we got the idea that our medical education is so superior to elsewhere. I agree though, that if you want to practice in the US, exhaust all options before looking outside, not because of the quality of the education here, but simply because of the reduction of hoops to jump through and the opportunities open to you once you graduate from a U.S. school.

I think the point has been made before that we should definitely screen foreign MDs to make sure they are up to the U.S. standard of care but I think changes should be made in the way we do so. Unfortunately, it's a tough thing to do.

HG

One would have to say that Irish and UK schools (i.e. govt recognized schools) are considered top notch. What makes some of the schools inferior is lack of facilities but also second class professors including felons, doctors who have lost their licenses, people who are graduates from unrecognized schools, and bad reputations of the graduates.

By the way osteopathy outside of the US is not full practice medicine; only US trained Do's have prescription,surgical,residency rights like MD's.

__________________
Moderator - State Licensing Forum

Still skeptical after all these years.
This is it. There are no hidden meanings.WYSIWYG

http://www.internetmedicalschool.homestead.com

http://www.chiropractormds.homestead.com/index.html

If you give me D.O. for free, I will not take it.

I agree with the original post hands down.
As far as the latest post hitherto....don't agree.

__________________
M.L. Taylor, MSIII
University of Sint Eustatius School of Medicine
Rotating

I want M.D. engraved around my grave when I die.

__________________
http://www.hornafrica.biz/index.html

That's grossly irresponsible statement, and not a very smart one. D.O. represent some of the finest doctors in just about every field of medicine.
I'd take US D.O over Carib M.D. anytime, and I have no problem paying for it

Billy: You make a good point as far as the quality of some DO's, but to say that you would take the DO degree from a US school, over the MD from an offshore school sounds almost as ignorant as the former post.
Your training is what you make of it.
Without a doubt US allopathic students have opportunities within their first 2 years of didatic training that offshore students don't. But that doesn't substantiate the quality of a physican in the long run.
Instead of arguing the prestige of what title, and where one aquired it from (which is senseless and proud), the argument should be: What makes the dogma of either discipline more "right" or beneficial ala the patient, disease, etc...

__________________
M.L. Taylor, MSIII
University of Sint Eustatius School of Medicine
Rotating