This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofeducation andeducation-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The NRMP identifies six "types" of applicants for NRMP matching positions.
U.S. Allopathic
Canadian
U.S. Osteopathic
US born FMG
Non-US born FMG
Fifth Pathway
Source:Results and Data February 2008 www.nrmp.org I propose each one of the these types be considered a pathway for entry into the US physician education and training system. Possibly the two foreign educated category be combined into one "IMG" category (since there's already one article on this.)Bryan HoppingT13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is physician education and training. Physicians in the United States are educated at two types of U.S. medical schools. The may also be educated internationally and permitted to enter the U.S. training system via various pathways.Bryan HoppingT19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a better formulation than having "pathways" and "degrees" would be "degrees" and "additional pathways", adding in the 2 beyond the traditional US MD and DO degrees. It avoids linking to 2 articles that are not actually about US physician education.Antelantalk01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that you keep reinserting, as one might have imagined. And based on that response, I can't tell if you understood what I was saying.Antelantalk12:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articleOsteopathic medicine in the United States discusses medical school and training, rather heavily. The articleallopathic, though very incomplete at the moment, does mention several bodies of great import to physician education and training in the United States. Does that answer the question? I'm not sure if I do understand what you are saying.Bryan HoppingT18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The core of my comment is that theallopathic link in this template is functionally redundant withMD, andosteopathic is functionally redundant withDO. MD and DO are relevant to training, and they give the reader links to and a sense of the philosophical differences. Therefore, I am combining the lists to keep it relevant and non-redundant.Antelantalk19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the redundancy argument. In each section, the allopathic/osteopathic parallelism is seen. MD/DO, AMA/AOA, AAMC/AACOM. The "pathways" articles are the general categories of this parallelism, the other subsections offer specific examples of the two categories.Bryan HoppingT19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, internal links via redirects should be avoided, hence "comparison of MD and DO" is the correct form. And I'm also interested in an answer to the pathways question above. If no one explains this section should possibly be removed. Also, User:Hopping is, perhaps unintentionally, pushing the term allopathic, which is not common and considered insulting by many. This point has been raised on his user page. The allopathic article is short, and describes the controversial history of the term rather than what an MD actually is. Hence a link to the MD article is far superior.—Precedingunsigned comment added by80.135.100.158 (talk)17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need an article that discusses these pathways in total, in addition to the articles that describe the individual components (i.e. the degrees, the exams, etc.)?Bryan HoppingT19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Hopping & whoever's using Tor...time to quit the edit warring here. Please take the time todiscuss the best way to link from the template. —Scientizzle20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really liked sidebar navigation in Wikipedia, and was wondering if anyone opposed converting this to a bottom{{navbox}}? The current box takes up too much space, has a lot of white space, and all of the links are hidden by default. I can't think of any other sidebar navigation boxes used on the medicine articles, but there are many bottom navboxes. Also, why not simplify the name of this template toTemplate:Medical education in the United States, to matchMedical education in the United States - the main article of the template? --Scott Alter04:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
