Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Merger Proposal

This article covers most of the same topics as Osteopathic medicine in the United States. I suggest it be merged into that article. I found that article first (via Osteopathy) when I used Wikipedia to learn more about a doctor my Dad is using who has a D.O. instead of an M.D. (I am not a doctor and had no prior knowledge of D.O.s, nor of the contentious history above.) -Bingoeleven (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To give some background, most of the info in the "comparison" article was originally in the articlesallopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine in the United States, but the amount of information gathered overburdened both those articles. A third article comparing the two was created as something of a compromise. There is a great deal of published material and commentary on the comparison topic. I agree that the article is not the strongest article on WP, but with some TLC it could be much better. These topics, allopathic v osteopathic, MDs v DOs, etc are so poorly understood, hence their necessity. They also tend to generate instant controversy here on WP, hence the somewhat apologetic tone. Bryan Hopping ^T 08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, if the two articles are extremely similar than that reflects a fault of Wikipedia and nothing else. This comparison page seems to me to be a distinct topic and worthy of its own well-written page.Ds2207 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Applicant aptitude indicators

This should be changed to Student aptitude indicators, instead of Applicant aptitude indicators since the data quoted is reflecting matriculants, not applicants. I have given percentile ranks by MCAT scores since nobody understands what a 31 or a 25 is outside of medicine. Please do not remove my references. As a side note, right now this page feels biased towards D.O.'s. The residency match chart is especially misleading, putting MD students in small text in the graphic while DO students stand out. It needs to be more honest and neutral. Cellmass (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"In general, Osteopathic Medical students have a pass rate less than that of their MD counterparts (81% vs 93%)[29] on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE), as well as a failure rate more than 3 times as high.[28] Among DO graduates who take Step 3 of the USMLE exam, however, pass rates for first-time takers are identical (95%) to those of first-time takers who are MD graduates.[30]. Osteopathic students who do not wish to apply into MD-associated residency programs are not required to take the USMLE and instead take the three-part Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensure Examination (COMLEX) that is sponsored by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) and which is a prerequisite for DO-associated residency programs, which are available in almost every specialty of medicine and surgery. Furthermore, the same study notes that "despite correlations between MCAT and Step 1 licensing exams, correlations between the latter and clinical performance are weak. Performance as a physician correlates better with proficiency in the humanities and with personal characteristics such as motivation, conscientiousness, integrity, empathy, and a robust psychological constitution."[28] The author notes that the "better performance [of Osteopathic students] on their own National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) exam has been attributed to its greater emphasis on clinical context."[28]"

I am deleting all of this. First of all, it makes sense that DO students wouldn't pass the USMLE at as high a rate as MD students because they don't study for it; they study for COMLEX first and USMLE (if they want to) second. Second of all, there is no data on MD students taking COMLEX so it is not a fair comparison to say that DO students fail the USMLE three times as much. I don't know where that last reference came from - again, no MD students take COMLEX. Third, Step 3 is much easier than Step 1 so comparing the two exams is invalid. This edit should take out a lot of unnecessary information. Cellmass (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You can remove well sourced info just because you don't like it or think it wrong. Please give a policy reason for removal or propose a rewrite. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

please fix the name

The article should be called "Comparison of MDs and DOs in the United States" or something else that is grammatically correct. — Reinyday, 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article name should be changed to "Defense of the DO in comparison to the MD," personally. The entire article focuses on how DOs are essentially the same...except for the disparities in applicant and student scoring on exams, their eligibility for training programs, their international status, etc. Everything that is an actual difference between these two degrees is immediately followed up with a "but..." detailing how much more humanities oriented DOs are in practice and here's a study that equates this to better doctoring. Come on. Could this article be written from a more skewed perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article merge

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Break apart "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States"?. NW (Talk) 16:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Resolved?

Are the neutrality disputes in this article resolved or not? If they are, then we should remove the neutrality dispute tag. Additionally, has the issue of whether or not to merge this article with osteopathic medicine in the United States been resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll do this review, but before I go too in-depth the article needs formatted references and at least one sentence needs a citation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I ran reflinks and corrected a lot of the unformatted references but there is still some cleanup needed Allecher (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Failed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the sentences tagged with "citation needed" now have references, and the reference formatting for the article overall is much improved...Rytyho usa (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auchansa (talk · contribs) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not formally reviewing this. However, I have grave concerns about this being a Good Article. Technically, it meets many of the checklists of a Good Article. However, it misses major questions that a reader might have.

Quite a few people believe that D.O.'s are inferior to M.D. You can argue if it is not true but sweeping it under the rug is a dis-service to the Wikipedia reader.

I would like to know if D.O. applicants could not get into a M.D. medical school. I suspect that thousands of other readers want to know if this is true.

It appears that there is some bias in the article and perhaps it was written largely by a D.O. One clue is in the introduction when it refers to M.D.'s as allopathic physicians. I thought that the term was mainly used by D.O.'s and that if you were to ask 100 M.D.'s, 99 or 100 of them would not say "I am an allopathic physician". Similarly, in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case, the ransom note was thought to be a fake because it read something along the lines of "We are a Foreign Faction." A real foreign faction would not refer to themselves as such.

Consider the above comments in article improvement. Auchansa (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I nominated the article, so I also will not be formally reviewing it, but I will respond to a couple of your concerns. Information on how many DO students applied and were rejected from MD schools is included in the article. See the student aptitude section, which compares the performance of M.D. and D.O. students on examinations.
• Part of the reason that "allopathic" is used in the article is because the term is found in several of the references, which are published by M.D. organizations. If you feel that you have constructive contributions to make regarding the use of the word, I strongly encourage you to do so on the talk page. Thank you for your feedback. Rytyho usa (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The way the article is written, there seems to be (intentional or unintentional) a theme to convince the reader that a DO is just as good as a MD, as if they are trying to prove themselves. Wikipedia should not be a Bible tract or an agenda pusher.

As far as state medical boards, I've looked at some websites and MD's are generally not referred to as "allopathic". It is common that MD's are referred to as "medical doctors" or "physicians".

When an article appears to be (intentionally or unintentionally) pushing an agenda, if it is a GA, it should go out of its way to be neutral. This is not the case with this article. There should be very great consensus that there is neutrality.

Is it possible that the clinical training of osteopathic schools are not as good? Is it that they do not have the cutting edge university hospitals and research? What is, according to Wikipedia, the reason for conversion of an osteopathic medical school, the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, into a M.D. degree granting school? Would that provide insight on the issue of D.O. schools, at least for editors trying to write this article (not necessarily including it in the article, though)?

Aren't there hokey awards, like the U.S. News' best hospitals? Aren't many of them affiliated with M.D. medical schools, but none or almost none of them affiliated with D.O. medical school? Is this relevant?

So many questions that cast doubt on the GA. Perhaps, a fresh set of editors should re-write the article? Auchansa (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions, osteopathic medical schools are not as well established as many of the M.D. schools, some of which have been around for a very long time. Also, there are currently far fewer D.O. schools than M.D. schools. However, the clinical training of osteopathic school is just as good as that of M.D. schools since the curricula taught at the schools is essentially identical. That being said, regarding the allopathic issue, it is a mix. I have seen works written by MDs (I can provide links if you need me to) that say allopathic and the link Rytyho referenced is actually by the NIH. Of course, I am under the impression that allopathic should be used minimally or not at all (I prefer the latter) as I think the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy is an antiquated one without much use. I think Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) and Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) is sufficient. As for whether or not the article is attempting to convince the reader that a DO is as good as an MD, as you said, many people erroneously assume that D.O.s are not the equals of M.D.s despite the fact that they are today. I agree that encyclopedia articles should not have an agenda and that they should dispel misinformation and provide accurate, unbiased information. Can you provide instances of biased tone in the article that can be improved upon? UC Irvine turning into an M.D. degree granting school has nothing to do with what you're talking about. There is a separate article that discusses that which I'm sure Rytyho can provide you a link to. As for whether or not DOs can or cannot get into MD school, it is a mix. Speaking from anecdotes, which I know is not evidence, I have heard instances both ways with MD students having applied to DO schools and not getting in, DO students applying to MD schools and not getting in, and the reverse situations as well. There is a small gap in average admissions standards but it is a diminishing gap and one that is addressed in the article I believe. To answer another of your questions, DO schools do have research programs. Also, if you examine the article more carefully, the issue of D.O. applicants and M.D. schools is discussed in the student aptitude indicators section. If you have other questions feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Auchansa: I agree. Most M.D. physicians do not identify as "allopathic physicians." However, the article does not suggest that most M.D. physicians identify as "allopathic physicians." In fact, it says just the opposite. As a rule, they do not. The article only indicates that they sometimes are referred to as such. A cursory review of a few websites is not sufficient evidence that the term is not used, or that it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an article. Good articles need not eliminate all controversial content, they only must present it in a neutral fashion. I think completely eliminating the word "allopathic" from the article would diminish, rather than improve, the quality of the article. Note: I have recently deleted one use of the word, and added a couple citations to clarify its current use. As it stands, the word is used once in the lead, and then again in the section entitled "Self-Identification." It is not used anywhere else in the article. If you, or TylerDurden8823, or anyone else still feel the use is unwarranted, let's continue this discussion.

Any editors or readers interested in reading about the California merger on wikipedia may do so by referencing Osteopathic medicine in the United States. That article gives thorough treatment to the issue of territorialism between M.D.s and D.O.s in the United States, and discusses their currently professional relationship, which is much less adversarial than it has been in the past. The article is linked in the history section of this article. Forgive me, but I fail to recognize your point here. You do not seem to believe that content should be included in this article, and I agree, but I don't think I follow you...

Please refrain from using sarcasm when discussing controversial topics on wikipedia. It is rarely helpful (WP:SARC). Also, please note that the article does discuss how M.D. residencies are generally considered more prestigious than D.O. residencies. See the sections on residencies and professional advantages. The article doesn't appear to avoid these topics, yet you seem unsatisfied with the current state of the article. Could you explain why? Specific suggestions regarding how to improve the article are always much more helpful than broad generalizations, such as "the article appears to be pushing an agenda." If you have references comparing the research conducted at MD and DO schools, or regarding the distribution of top rated hospitals with affiliations with M.D. institutions vs. D.O. institutions, I encourage you to include that in the article. If any discrepancies exist in the quality of clinical education between MD and DO schools, and you are aware of quality references, please add them. Personally, my research has not indicated that to be case, although perhaps you are aware resources or journal articles that I am not aware of.

I look forward to working with you both on further improving this article. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have added some more information on applicants to both D.O. schools and M.D. schools (how many were accepted by both, MD only, and DO only). Any feedback on that is also welcomed. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading the Allopathic medicine article I think you should be very careful how you use the term allopathic. Saying "are sometimes known as allopathic physicians" is too ambiguous and potentially misleading. The opening sentence is not encyclopaedic. This is not an essay so there is no need to introduce the topic that way. Also an uncited single sentence history section is not going to meet the GA standards. Haven't looked too closely at the rest of the article, but its nomination appears premature. I can't find any other comparison articles that are rated Good for you to compare this to, but I have worked on one relating to sprots and it can be difficult to write these types of articles neutrally and without straying into WP:Synth territory. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AIRcorn: wow, that's a really good point about the lead; I don't know how I missed that. Thanks! I've just reworded it. I re-read some of the references from the allopathic article, and I agree: it's a word that ought to be used with caution. The lead now indicates that it's a controversial term. For the history section, I think the original intention was to drive readers to the article on osteopathic medicine in the united states for more background, but this article probably deserves a more complete section of its own. Thanks for the feedback! Should the article fail the GA review, or should it be put on hold for a week to allow changes to be made? Rytyho usa (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a very difficult article to write. If we are politically correct, we could try to convince the readers that they are the same. If we are realistic, it may be hard to get sources.

On another subject, near the top of the article, after the lede, it says "There is a history of territorialism between the MD and DO qualified physicians' worlds, though animosity between the groups has subsided in recent years." Shouldn't there be a source? Was there really animosity . Has it subsided?. I thought that some MD's thought DO came from lousy medical schools, but not as lousy as some elsewhere in the world, but did not hate DO's. I thought that some DO's are jealous of MD's and think they are just as good. Of course, these conclusions are original research, though they may guide us to the truth of the matter.

Bottom line, it is a tough article to write. Could one hypothetically write an article "Comparison better graduates of the UCLA medical school and Marshall University medical school"? Just as tough.

Just a thought...maybe DO do residencies in worse hospitals?

Just another thought...the article compares MD's to DO's. How about the MD that went to medical school in India or Dominican Republic. Of course, maybe political correctness is such that an Indian medical school is equal to the best US medical school?

Any doctors here?

Auchansa (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence about territorialism and animosity should be cited.

I suppose I took the article to be only about U.S. medical graduates of M.D. programs and D.O. programs. However, I am not convinced that offering a balanced comparison while satisfying GA criteria is impossible. That's an interesting thought on the IMGs - should the article include international medical graduates? I don't know. The lead does indicate it's about physicians practicing in the United States. Rytyho usa (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question Auchansa, no, most DOs actually do their residencies in ACGME/AOA dually accredited residency programs and some still do them in AOA programs. I also agree that the sentence in the history section should be cited even though it is correct. I think you may be oversimplifying things a bit though Auchansa. I believe that it is only a small proportion of MDs who still think the way you speak of and that the majority of them recognize that DOs are medical physicians just as they are and the same goes for DOs, I think only a small minority might feel the way you described. We know that original research has no place in this article anyway so that's really a moot point. Also, there's an allopathic medicine article??? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to write, as I have said before. Especially when there is controversy, there must be a citation. The citation must be balanced. (It doesn't help if an article is written with biased statements, even if there is a citation for each of the biased sentences).

One possibility is to slowly work on this. The other possibility is to rapidly work on this, but I don't know if there are enough people with lots of time to devote to this.

As far as "most DOs actually do their residencies in ACGME/AOA dually accredited residency programs", this may need a citation but if it is true, then that may be a good point.

How about specialized fields, like ENT? Is this true?

"In 2001, the AOA adopted a provision making it possible for a D.O. resident in any M.D. program to apply for osteopathic approval of their training.[54] The topic of dual-accreditation is controversial" ------ This is confusing. It sounds like a DO resident can do a MD residency and get osteopathic approval, this making the residency program ACGME/AOA. This is either confusing or incorrect. The previous paragraph implied that some residency programs get accreditation by both groups, which sounds more likely. Readers of a GA should not become confused easily because of confusing text. Auchansa (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've started a thread here on the talk page about the main problem I see with this article. Biosthmors (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Auchansa, DOs work in every specialty in medicine including specialties like ENT as you mentioned and the rest. The statement I made on this talk page is not something I explicitly put into the article though I'm sure it discusses it somewhere that most DO medical students enter into AOA/ACGME dually accredited residencies. There are programs that get approval from both the AOA and the ACGME to clarify my previous statements. I'll refer you to this article's 74th reference which shows that there are programs that have received approval by both the AOA and ACGME. What you said above applies to programs that are only accredited by the ACGME and not both-hence you must apply for osteopathic approval of the ACGME residency. There are four states (Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma that require the AOA to recognize ACGME internship (PGY1) training so that DO residents may apply for board certification. This whole process (called resolution 42) is avoided when DO students enter into an AOA-approved internship year and then do an ACGME or AOA/ACGME or AOA residency. If it is still not clear to you I can always try to explain it in a different way. In the meanwhile, here are two links that may clarify things for you:

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/Education/postdoctoral-training/Pages/trainee-forms-and-applications.aspx

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/Education/postdoctoral-training/Pages/resolution-42.aspx/

As far as D.O. in every specialty, I did some research and found this may not be true. I looked up how many burn surgeons in the U.S. are D.O. and found there are zero. I looked up how many oculoplastic surgeons in the U.S. are D.O. and I can find only two, one in Michigan and one in South Carolina. What I think is the truth is that D.O. medical schools are less reputable and their graduates have a hard time getting into competitive fields. Furthermore, D.O. schools frequently do not have all of the specialties in their teaching hospital. Sure, they have the main ones, but not always the small fields.

This comment doesn't relate to the article so much as one of the editor's comments, which may be almost true, but not true.

Another editor questioned whether this is really a suitable article for Wikipedia. What I can say is that it is a very hard article since it is a comparison and not a single thing, like Albania or flashlight or George Washington. Should Wikipedia have an article "Comparison of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton"? Or "Comparison of the living standards of Canada and the United States"? Or "Comparison of private schools and public schools in Florida"? Good questions to consider.

What about an article "Different kinds of Doctors in the U.S." and have that cover DO, MD, optometrist, doctor of nurse practitioner, etc. Which brings to the subject how about "Comparison of optometrists with D.O. ophthalmologists"? It would be a travesty to have an essay about how optometrists are almost like D.O. ophthalmologists, they have x years of training, they have so-called residencies, which don't compare at all with D.O. ophthalmology residencies, etc. Auchansa (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Auchansa, what you have said here is inaccurate. DOs are permitted to go into any medical specialty. Just because there aren't currently any DO burn surgeons you can find does not mean there are not any nor does it mean they cannot specialize in that field. DOs are certainly allowed to specialize in reconstructive plastic surgery. I was able to find DOs who specialize in that particular field with a very simple google search immediately I urge you to be a bit more thorough next time before making inaccurate claims like that. You seem to have forgotten what I wrote above-most DO schools are much younger and not as well established. It is a growing field and that is well known amongst those who know about DOs. Regardless, what you think is the truth is not really the point here. You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it correct. It is true that DOs can specialize in any medical field. I still think that Biosthmors had the right idea about what to do with the article. I don't think a new article called different kinds of doctors in the U.S. is necessary when there is already a well-established and written article to continue improving. What did that optometrist/ophthalmologist comparison have to do with anything? Nevermind, forget I asked, it's off topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can they or are there some sort of barriers or training issues why they are not? Part of the reason that D.O.'s are not burn surgeons may because that none (I think) of the teaching hospitals of D.O. schools have burn centers, at least, on this list. http://www.ameriburn.org/verification_verifiedcenters.php Not all of the hospitals on this list are the main teaching hospital of MD medical schools, but many are such as the University of Wisconsin Burn Center, University of Washington Burn Center, VCU Burn Center, University of Utah Burn Center, which are the bottom 4 of the list. I looked up a few of these burn centers and none of them that I looked up have D.O.'s. I suppose I should ask a burn surgeon to find out the comprehensive story. However, clearly there is some reason why M.D. are in fields, like burn surgery, but D.O. are either not or there are so few of them that a search can't find any of them. As far as the statement that D.O. are permitted, there is a saying that anyone can be President of the U.S. However, we've never seen a convicted murderer or an African-American woman or a Japanese-American President. It may be because the barriers to being President are too big for these people to attain. In contrast, there have been over 40 White male Presidents.

Blatantly false. I've already shown you that there are actually DOs who are burn surgeons despite your insistence that there are not. Furthermore, I've already provided you a very simple explanation for why there are far fewer DOs who are burn surgeons when compared to MDs. In pure numbers, there are currently a lot more MDs in the United States than DOs. A simple search does find them, you are either not looking or not looking very hard. I performed a simple google search and managed to find some within a few minutes. Your analogy to the Presidents is a flawed one since you are the one who initially questioned whether a DO can specialize in burn surgery at all (they can) and I have demonstrated that. I'll even quote you: "As far as D.O. in every specialty, I did some research and found this may not be true." And of course: "This comment doesn't relate to the article so much as one of the editor's comments, which may be almost true, but not true." You even went so far as to say my statements (which are accurate) were false (not true). And you even admitted that your own comments were really getting off topic, not a good thing when reviewing an article.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there are a lot of unanswered questions. This is a very hard article to write.I wish it were an easier article to write. An article, like Toulouse, France or Thomas Jefferson, is much easier to write. Auchansa (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It think this discussion should be copy/pasted to Osteopathic medicine in the United States (and continued there) as that looks like the likely merge target for this article. As I mention on the talk page of this article, I think the topic of this article is not notable enough for its own page (thus it is difficult to write about). Biosthmors (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion and evaluation using standard criteria

A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[5]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and (c) it contains no original research.

There are problems with this section. Based on the talk page, there are some real problems and controversy with this article. For the history section, there is not evidence that the historical events described are the most relevant in the comparison of the two. Are the quotes just a random quote that an editor found and presumes is typical of the era?

I am concerned that the article does contain original research. For example, in the cultural difference section, what evidence do we have that the main cultural difference is "self characterization", "perceptions", and "self identifications"? Are there several sources that agree that these are the sole or main cultural differences?

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]

Based on the talk page, the article does not address the issues and/or has problems. Foreign medical school MD graduates are also ignored. I read that a chunk of doctors are foreign graduates.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

I also note that this article has failed GA in the past.

There is a potential major omission. The licensure section has a big chart. However, there is no mention of something I just found out. D.O. are licensed in many states by a separate osteopathic medical board, composed only of D.O. and M.D. are excluded. D.O. cannot be licensed by regular medical boards and M.D. have to go through these boards, not the osteopathic board.

One editor above even remarked that this article should be merged, which would make it not a GA.

Auchansa (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more helpful to cite specific examples of the article that could be improved upon. I can't say I agree with your assessment of the history section (going over it again it seems like it definitely covers important events (although perhaps this section can be expanded further). Do you have any evidence that the article contains original research? Can you cite specific sentences that make you think this? As for the self-characterization bit, if you actually open the reference it comes directly from that study. I know because I just looked since I hadn't seen that study before myself. You may want to read wikipedia's definition of original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research Also, are you really supposed to base the majority of your assessment on the talk page? I'm considering asking for a second opinion since this was a rather poor review in my opinion and failed to provide specific examples of where the article has shortcomings and suggestions for remedying them. Not sure if it's worth the trouble though since the article may be merged anyway and it would be a moot point. Regardless, you may want to display a bit more neutrality the next time you do a GA review (such as not making blatantly false statements as you did earlier or at least conceding that you made errors and jumped the gun).TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have consulted with Doc James, an administrator and main editor at the Med Portal.

There are two major issues at hand. One is a possible POV issue. Others have raised similar points. The other issue is that there is serious talk of a merge. This makes the article not stable since it could be merged at any time.

Based on this, I consider this GA application to be concluded and not passed.

I would encourage discussion to see if this article stays or is a merge. Then I would try to get an object re-write of it. There are clearly some differences in DO's versus MD's. This is not to say one is bad. There are also needs some other work as noted above.

Don't be discouraged. Perhaps, if a GA is desired, continued work could be done and make it the best GA (or even FA) ever. Perhaps a goal would be daily work on this for the rest of the year in order to make it really nice by late November and then get that FA by the end of the year. Good luck! Auchansa (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, more helpful to cite specific sentences in the article that display your points and need improvement. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is beneficial for WP when articles are clearly GA or FA. When there is doubt, it does not help WP if just promote articles so people can put stars or green crosses on their page. Auchansa (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. I'm not saying you should have automatically passed it as GA. I'm saying to be more constructive, instead of just saying the article needs this, the article needs that, or it sounds this way, etc. you need to be more specific about what paragraph, what sentence, etc needs improvement and in what way. It is always more helpful to give clear, concise, specific places in the article in need of revision and demonstrate how the current version is lacking in any way. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought:

"D.O. dermatology training is much better now than it's been in the past," says David M. Pariser, M.D., American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) president-elect. "Some allopathic dermatologists may not realize the improvements that have been made in D.O. dermatology programs, though there's still more work to do for some programs."" Bryan Hopping T 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they bad to begin with or is this editor's comment invalid?

As discussed on other pages, this page vastly overuses the term allopathic. It uses the term in a fashion only understood by a minority, even within the US medical community. The term is understood by C/AM practitioners (such as homoeopaths) to include American osteopathic DOs! It is also insulting and incorrect terminology. I think this term should be used where appropriate, but nearly every use in this page can be replaced by a more accurate term that will avoid any confusion and ambiguity. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment was made. This may be a source of dispute one way or another?

If what you say is true, then fix it. From what I see, it looks like nearly all of its occurrences in this article are in quotes or it is being used to describe how it is not a generally accepted term. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

←One of the reasons that MD's consider the term pejorative is that it is destructive to medicine. There is an implication in the word that MD's do not utilize everything to treat a patient, or that MD's have an inherent bias against medicine that is not sold to them by Big Pharma. My problem with using "allopathic medicine" is that there is medicine and there is...nothing. Medicine implies that it has been scientifically tested and rigorously analyzed for safety and efficacy. Non-medicine means it hasn't. Maybe sitting under a crystal pyramid will cure you of erectile dysfunction, but there's no science to prove that. Medicine is just medicine. Everything else is unproven. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See above

Merging seems like a great idea. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Instability, may not survive as an article???

If you see issues regarding POV or MOS that have not been addressed than yes I would not pass it as a GA.Doc James 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I do not endorse or support any of the above quotes nor do I this one from Forbes. However, they are food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/ Are they equal? Well, not quite. Osteopathy started out as little more than pseudoscience, based on the mistaken idea that manipulations of the skeleton and muscles – massage, basically – would cure disease. Finally, there is data that shows that students enrolling at colleges of osteopathy have lower grades than students entering medical schools, suggesting (though this is not proof, of course) that D.O. schools provide an alternative route to a medical degree for those who aren’t good enough to get into normal medical schools.... the standards are higher at schools offering MDs,... (DOs)do get standard medical training, and some of them are undoubtedly very good doctors...

This is a ridiculous argument. At the time that osteopathic medicine was founded in the middle of the nineteenth century there were plenty of ridiculous treatments used by all physicians, MD, DO, and otherwise. Both fields have adopted the principles of modern medicine. And to cite such a biased article, this really is not good for your credibility Auchansa. Also, osteopathy is an antiquated term that is strongly discouraged to avoid confusion with non-physician osteopaths trained outside of the United States. The admission standards are currently higher at MD schools but as the article notes, it is diminishing each year and is not very much anymore. Many DOs are excellent doctors just as many MDs are excellent doctors. You also need to compare UCSF MD graduates with Harvard Medical school MD graduates as well Auchansa. There are quality differences between MD schools also. I've already provided you many plausible reasons for why there is currently a disparity in the number of specialists when comparing the DO and MD fields. You just choose to ignore those reasons completely.04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, how do Rocky Vista DO compare with University of Colorado MD graduates? Lake Erie DO graduates compared with UCSF MD graduates? AT Still Universtiy DO graduates versus Harvard Medical School MD graduates? Are they all the same???

Also see comments in this GA2? Comments include not explaining why there is disparity between number of MDs and DOs in certain very specialized and competitive (to get into) sup-specialties, the feeling among some that this article attempts to "prove" that DO are the same as MDs by citing a possible difference then saying "but....". Also not covered is diversity among MDs, such as those who went to medical school in India or third world countries. Auchansa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, should an encyclopedia have articles which compare two things?

I see we have lots and lots of "Comparison of X" articles but I have only found one so far, Comparison of C Sharp and Java, that compares two things. And it has been tagged as containing OR since 2007. I'm also thinking the title is not encyclopedic because the subject "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" is not notable. I see we have Osteopathic medicine in the United States up to GA status. I'm glad. But why does should this article exist? Sorry to those who have put hard work in, but I just don't get it. It seems we could all produce better content for readers by improving articles that are notable. HIV/AIDS, for example, is in need of a good article reviewer. The encyclopedia could use your energy and effort. Please help! But here? Biosthmors (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The people I would ask would either be user: Hopping or user: Scottalter since if you look in the article's view history archives in the earliest section they seem to be the people who established this article. I could not tell you what was on either one of their minds when making this article. This point was recently brought up indirectly with the observation that there is certainly a degree of redundancy occurring in some of these articles and I'm sure this is pervasive in wikipedia for broader subjects. Regarding what to do from here...couldn't tell you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the "does" was rhetorical. I don't know why it should exist. It seems like any relevant content could be merged into Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Biosthmors (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how an editor goes about doing that but it sounds like an idea. I don't know the proper channels to go through to get something like that authorized either but I'm sure you do. If so, perhaps you should take the necessary steps to see if you can get this article merged with the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States article. I don't think the community would have any major objections to a merger like this considering the extent of overlap between the two articles. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

An alternate way is to just improve the other article and not go through the bureaucratic process of merging until the other article is sufficiently improved. Auchansa (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is Biosthmors' point, what I think he's saying is that this particular article is unnecessary, or to be more accurate redundant, since the article Osteopathic Medicine in the United States shares a great deal of overlapping content. It may be more effective to further improve that article to feature status and have all the information needed in fewer articles than repeated information in many. I don't think Bio is necessarily commenting on the current quality of this particular article itself. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Auchanasa is suggesting we just manually transfer the content of this article over to the osteopathic med in the US article until we've moved everything that's important. Then we could just have this article deleted, which may be easier (less bureaucracy) than achieving an official merger. Rytyho usa (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, I misunderstood what Auchansa was saying. Well, I personally have no experience with this particular aspect of bureaucracy but if you do, then by all means go for it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We can let this discussion go for at least a week or so. If and when consensus develops we can then perform a merge according to Wikipedia:Merging. Biosthmors (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging seems like a great idea. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This article can be salvaged. It could provide more information than the osteopathic article has. For example, it could discuss MDs. It may be inappropriate to add too much bulk about MDs to that article. Auchansa (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Enyclopedias (or Wikipedia) do not make a practice of hosting such articles. Most of what I see here seems like it belongs at either Osteopathy or Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Given that DOs are a less-common physician, I see no reason why editors would object to comparing them to MDs in either article. What core text definitely belongs to stay in this (and only this) article? Biosthmors (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Biosthmors. I think it would be better to consolidate it into the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So, is this merger happening or what? I'm pretty sure we've hit our one week mark and then some. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As there appears to be no active party willing to make an argument against the merge, I plan on scrutinizing the article and the merge target to see if there is anything I'm missing. I may get sidetracked with other things I'm working on here so another note or message on my talk page may be helpful, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some potential facts that may be useful:

The first medical school in the United States was the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), which was established in 1765.[4] Medical schools in the United States originally conferred the Bachelor of Medicine. In 1767, King's College of Medicine (now known as the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) in New York was the first American University to grant the M.D. degree[5] instead of the Bachelor of Medicine.

Frontier physician Andrew Taylor Still, M.D., DO, founded osteopathic medicine in 1892 as a radical protest against the turn-of-the-century medical system. A.T. Still believed that the conventional medical system lacked credible efficacy, was morally corrupt, and treated effects rather than causes of disease.[6] At that time in the United States, traditional medicine used medications, surgery, and other therapeutic regimens that often caused more harm than good. Some of the medicines commonly given to patients included arsenic, castor oil, whiskey, and opium. Additionally, unsanitary surgical practices often resulted in more deaths than cures.[7] At the end of the 19th century, the relationship between the osteopathic and medical professions was often "bitterly contentious"[8]

The scope of osteopathic medicine, which originally only included manual medicine, expanded in 1951 to include family practice.[11] In 1971, the scope expanded again to encompass full-service medical care, including multiple specialties.[11]

A 2010 survey of students applying to both U.S. M.D. and D.O schools found that 35% were only admitted to a DO school, 11% were only admitted to an M.D. school, 26% were admitted to both, while the remaining 52% were not admitted to any schools.[19] <<<Not sure how accurate this survey was and if there is accurate data that doesn't involve recall or admitting what really happened>>>>

Michigan State University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey are the only universities that have both M.D. and D.O. accredited programs.[37]

Some authors note the differences in average GPA and MCAT scores of those who matriculate at D.O. schools versus those who matriculate at M.D. schools within the United States. In 2011, the average MCAT and GPA for students entering U.S.-based M.D. programs were 31.1 and 3.67,[46] respectively, and 26.51 and 3.50 for D.O. matriculants,[47] although the gap has been getting smaller every year.[48] As many as one out of every three students matriculating at a D.O. medical school has been rejected by M.D. programs;[49]

In the United States, ACGME-accredited residency training programs have been generally considered more prestigious ... tend to be at large academic medical centers.[73]

One thing not mentioned in the article is that DOs have a hard time getting into the more prestigious residency programs as well as the more competitive specialties (ophthalmology and ENT????). If DO schools granted MD degrees, this would probably disappear but DO schools might have trouble getting accreditation, particularly the smaller ones with no large academic teaching hospital. Good luck Auchansa (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your bias is showing through again. DOs do get into "prestigious residencies" and get into opth and ENT although possibly at lower rates, I would need to see data. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that they are prohibited from entering competitive fields. Once a DO told me that some fields are so competitive that very few (but not none) DO can get into. Either that DO was lying, which I doubt, or there is some truth to it. However, maybe few people want to write a newspaper article to include that fact so there is a lack of reliable sources mentioning this. Of course, it could be, but unlikely, that DO's don't want to get into ophthalmology and ENT. This is why a comparison article is difficult to write. Auchansa (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How might the copy-paste job above be useful? I don't understand how it was meant to connect to the discussion. Biosthmors (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The excerpts that I listed are, in my opinion, the most important facts that might be useful in an osteopathic medicine article. Auchansa (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the process of merging articles. but after a quick look over the wiki pages for merging articles, it looks like it's done manually (non-automatic process), and there is a formal process of tagging the articles for discussion. While I don't object to a the idea of a merger between these two articles, I might suggest that we go about it the proper way (WP:MERGEPROP). Beyond that, I might have some time to work on the merger (assuming it happens, which it looks like it will), although only on an inconsistent basis.

I also don't see the purpose of the copy-paste job. None of that seems to much matter now, at least not for this thread, since this article will never be a good article, and won't even be an article at all for much longer. We can talk about who gets the best residencies on the Osteopathic medicine in the United States talk page, or even on a different thread on this page, until the merger happens.Rytyho usa (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a merger. This is an article that specifically focuses on the comparison of two phenomenon. There is a great deal of published literature out there studying this comparison. A simple PubMed search reveals this. PubMed. This article should be expanded with this information, not merged into an already lengthy article. Bryan Hopping ^T 13:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See the original point Hopping. The original point Biosthmors made is that encyclopedias are not really meant to compare two things in this manner. Though literature may exist discussing this comparison, this does not mean this cannot be a discussion within the context of the Osteopathic medicine in the United States article. This article already contains a great deal of overlap with that page and I can see the point why it isn't necessary to have this as a separate article but make it a section of the other article. I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this and support the merger.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that the comparison passes the notability requirement, but should we have a comparison page anyways? It doesn't seem inherently problematic to me, since there are several other comparison articles on wikipedia. How much does it matter that we are only comparing 2 things on this article, rather than 3 or 4? Does an article suddenly become encyclopedic when you add a third subject to the comparison? I agree about the overlap - that's an issue. Could we improve the article's focus to cut down on overlap? Much of the history was taken from the Osteopathic Medicine in the US article; I was going to trim it down and focus it appropriately to compare MD and DO, but I don't want to do that if we're just going to delete this article or merge it with the other. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much feel that this page is redundant when considering the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. I still don't know if this comparison page is necessary but I'm also not as familiar as others are with the notability requirements, etc. I still favor merging the article since I feel that consolidating the information on wikipedia would be a more organized, focused approach. There is already some comparison of MD and DO physicians in United States article and with expansion I think the article can do the topic justice. There's also the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine page and this page has considerable overlap with that one as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many comparison articles on WP. Some much shorter than this one: Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees, Comparison of train and tram tracks, Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. In fact there's a whole category, Category:Comparisons. As far as the redundancy/overlap goes, there are many articles with significant redundancy, see HIV/AIDS v Management of HIV/AIDS v HIV (and many others.) The problem is an article can get too long, as is already the case with "Osteopathic med in the US." Adding this info back into that article, would make for one very long section, and would further weigh that article down. This actually was once the case, and the decision to start a separate article was made, and to encourage more discussion of the obviously notable topic (the comparison) in this article. The key is to expand this article, and to refer to it in the Osteopathic medicine article when appropriate so readers can find it.Bryan Hopping ^T 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy takes precedence over an article being too lengthy in my view. Brevity is important, no doubt, but that seems like more of a stylistic aspect of the article. I'm not saying there aren't limits, obviously an article that is way too long will not really be accessible to readers but there are also readers who are lazy and will not bother to read articles that are of reasonable length (though there may be variations in what people deem as a reasonable length for such an article). Regardless, I think the extent of the overlap makes this article redundant enough that it does not merit being its own article and should be merged. The question really boils down to this-what does this article add to the encyclopedia that the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page does not or cannot? Also, notability of a topic can change over time so just because a topic was notable in the past does not mean it is today necessarily (I'm not saying such a comparison is or isn't, I am simply saying that past notability does not always equal present notability). Anyway, I think I have made my view on the merger clear enough and do not feel the need to repeat myself further. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article can still be focused enough to justify keeping it. The osteopathic medicine in the united states is a bit lengthy, although I agree that's not the primary concern here. Even though that article offers some information on how osteopathic medicine compares with M.D. medicine, it is limited and some amount of overlap with this article is unavoidable. The point is, I think excessive overlap or redundancy can (and should) be minimized. It looks like the article was proposed for deletion a while back, much of the conversation then was similar to our current discussion. Check it out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Anyone else have input on the issue of redundancy? Rytyho usa (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion: Stick to the topic. Sections have been added to this article that are off-topic. Almost the entire "History" section simply repeats information presented in the OMUS article. A good rule of thumb for this article: If the statement is not directly comparing osteopathic/allopathic med, it does not belong in this article, and should be removed. Bryan Hopping ^T 13:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Biosthmors (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I took out a chunk. Biosthmors (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good edit. A significant improvement. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Professional advantages

The "professional advantages" section is unfocused, mistitled, and feels like WP:OR & WP:WEASEL to me. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it needs work. I moved some of the info about residencies to the sections about residencies, because it seems more relevant to that topic.Rytyho usa (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

New source possiblity: US News World Report. Bryan Hopping ^T 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Academic requirements

Why shouldn't we mention lower entrance academic requirements in the lead? [1] Biosthmors (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement that the entrance requirements are lower in osteopathic medical schools compared to MD schools strikes me as misleading, even inaccurate. Having different entrance exam scores or GPA statistics is different from having lower requirements. Requirements are required, and those include a specific number of college-level biology, chemistry, and physics courses, completing the MCAT exam, submitting personal statement essays, letters of recommendation, etc. On that front, M.D. schools and D.O. schools have the same requirements. Even if a school or a group of schools has a higher average MCAT scores, it doesn't necessarily mean they have higher entrance requirements.Rytyho usa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also a small difference and one that is shrinking annually.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how one would quantify "small difference" but it would necessitate talking statistics, I think. For the 2010 MCAT, a 31 is the 79.9–84.4 percentile, whereas a 26/27 is the 51–63 percentile. My inclusion to the lead was reverted.[2] Why isn't this significant enough for the lead? Biosthmors (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S. News and World report sure makes a big deal out of average MCAT and GPA scores when they compare medical schools.[3] Biosthmors (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The article discusses many differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine. There is no source citing MCAT scores of pre-med students as the "key difference" between the two professions, thus making it worthy of discussion in the lead. Certainly, the pre-med statistics are worth mentioning, as they are in the article, but there is no reason to place them with such prominence. This is not a US News & World Report Ranking List. This is an encyclopedia. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How is that a criterion according to WP:LEAD? We could easily have two, and potentially three paragraphs. If the lead were two paragraphs would you support it? Three? Biosthmors (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." You asking me if I would support "it." I would support discussing how to improve the lead, with specific language.Bryan Hopping ^T 14:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is "it", which you reverted. Are you universally opposed to this ever being in the lead, even if the lead were two or three paragraphs long? I think that is a fair question. Why would I spend time summarizing the entire article only to hear "no I still don't like it"? Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "this" one comparison is significant enough to be specifically mentioned in the lead to an article comparing two professions. But I can imagine a scenario where the article focused more on osteopathic/allopathic education, and in that case I suppose a general mention of difference in the average college academic schools and premedical testing scores might be warranted. However, I see more relevance to factors/comparisons of MD/DO once they actually are involved in medicine. Looking specifically at comparisons of undergrads, BEFORE they even attend medical school seems like overreaching to me, but that's really just my personal opinion. What is not my personal opinion, are the numerous studies comparisons one can find on this topic on PubMed and other sources [4] & [5]. I suggest examining the sources to guide our analysis here. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question about defining/quantifying a "small difference" it's true that I don't have an exact definition but 3.50 and 3.67 seem pretty close to me. That point aside, the difference between the MD and DO statistics is diminishing each year which is really the key point I was trying to get across. I also feel this difference already has been given sufficient attention in the student aptitude indicators section in the article. In a few years the last remaining bit of difference between the admissions statistics will most likely disappear (my own opinion/prediction) and it won't even be important to have the student aptitude indicators section at all. Just something to think about. Another thing to consider is to wait for data from this current year (class of 2016) to see if the gap closes more, stays the same, widens, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Debt / finances

How bout a section comparing med school finances? This is a great source comparing the two: Medical students still burdened by high debt loads. CAROLYNE KRUPA, AMEDNEWS.. Aug. 27, 2012. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3