Really good point. I think the situation wasn't necessarily that Miami handled it better but rather they had a much smaller percentage of students protesting against the war. It was a much more manageable situation for them than for us or OSU. And I think it's logical to assume that image as the calm conservative campus was reinforced throughout the state and like began to attract like, particularly as youth became more conservative in the late 70s and 80s. I went to college in the mid to late 80's, and by then, Miami's image really did live up to the stereotype. If you weren't a preppy, Greek business major from an upper middle class family, you stuck out like a sore thumb there.

Pardon my rambling stream of conscience thinking, but there are a few things I would like to address in no particular order. Alan, Billy, OCF, myself and others have talked a great deal about the the demographic situation and marketing needed to stop the bleeding. As much as the the top leadership doesn't impress me, my contact with some of the deans and assistant deans has never been better. I realize I am a grown man now, but it seems to me that in the 80s and 90s some of these same indivuals, especially in some of the more vaunted colleges within our beloved Alma mater were far from accessible.

My work in high schools tell me that students have a pretty good opinion of the campus and all it has to offer. Our Medical school really is generating positive feedback. I would say as far as state schools, besides us I hear the usual admiration for Miami. It seems to me that many students (and their parents) have a love-hate relationship with Ohio State, especially due to the branch campus admission roundabout, which is confusing to say the least. Cincinnati seems to be coming on like gangbusters in so many ways with their marketing, apprenticeship programs etc. I know Bowling Green has been getting a lot of love, but I just don't sense it compared to what I hear about UC. I get the feeling that Akron is in a world of hurt, I just don't hear any students or their parents talking about talking Zip Nation, whereas a few years back, I thought they might be headed for a trunaround. Just not hearing anything good.

As far as private schools, besides the Ohio 5, Dayton sure gets a lot of love and surprising to me are places like Findlay who are really tailoring their programs to bring certain programs together like Equestrian and Veterinarian programs. It may be a bit different, but the experts tell me that combining certain unique fields can really grow your numbers if you are a small school.

We have a good vibe with many students, but we just need to accentuate what we do well, because while the Medical School is bringing us a good deal of positive ink, the demise of the old Journalism world (our one time specialty) is probably never going to be what it once was, though I am sure the well paid faculty members would beg to differ. As strange as it may sound, if I were President Nellis I would send a team to Dayton, Cincinnati and even Findlay and try to emulate some of the good things they are accomplishing.

OU Pride, my guess is that a medical school carries a great deal of clout with students and their parents. Perhaps they think if the medical school is on the rise, it bodes well for the rest of the university.

Demographics have always been of interest to me, though my advanced math skills or lack thereof don't qualify me to draw up actuarial tables for future numeric tables, considering our region and nation's declining birth rate. This is why I brought up Cincinnati, Dayton and Findlay; three universities doing well with different sizes and challenges. In my previous post, I listed why that might be the case for each university. It would seem to me that we need to figure out what they have done and craft our own program. We are miles ahead of places like Akron. We need to keep in that way. This is why I suggested that President Nellis pick a team of qualified individuals to figure out what to do, drawing from those three successful universities, as well as others.

This thinking still persists for sure and probably most prevalent within the medical community. The average Joe thinks about a doctor as a doctor not a MD or a DO. My wife is a DO so I've heard this discussed quite a bit. From the experiences she's been through applying from medical school to residency and then on to fellowship it seems when there are many highly qualified (almost all are at this level) the DO vs MD is a tiebreaker to eliminate candidates. The old guard in the most prestigious programs in the country are almost exclusively MD. They tend to pursue only MDs for their residency and fellowship programs which perpetuates this thought that MD is superior to DO. We were told more than one time that certain programs would not consider a DO.

As the body dummy for a lot of weird Year 1 DO stuff I might tend to believe DOs start a little behind as they focus some time on stuff that looks more like Chiropractic care than traditional medicine but as soon as that's over there is no difference in training and in some cases the testing.

DOs have the option to take a different test than MDs when finishing residency I believe, but most that plan to specialize further take the MD test knowing they will need it to help their case in gaining entry to fellowship. I forget what that's called but it is not the test for becoming Board Certified. If your physician is board certified they had to all pass the same test whether DO or MD so to me that is the point where this debate is moot. There is a written component followed typically a year down the road by an oral exam in front of a panel. If they pass both they are then board certified. Those that specialize can choose to pursue being double board certified if they complete Fellowship which is the same process but with the tests relating to the sub specialty. The oral exams require collecting case data and defending decisions made in medical care along their course of training or current work.

It's a long route, took my wife from graduating undergrad at OU in 2007 until finishing fellowship at the NIH in 2020 and she's still working on becoming double board certified. She had 2 "gap" years after not matching to a program for fellowship but kept at it. It is an insane amount of work to get to that level so if you have a Board certified doctor you can feel pretty good about it whether DO or MD. There are lots of doctors who are not board certified both DO & MD. Doesn't mean they are a bad doctor but if I had to choose I would always pick board certified over not. Docs under 40 may still be working towards it though.

I've learned way too much about this over the years.

CBUS, LongDriver -- Good points and good information. I spent about 30 years as the director of communication at what is now OU-HCOM, so I'm well aware of the struggles of D.O.s to gain the recognition that they deserve. I've written extensively on the history of osteopathic medicine. For some background I can refer you to an article I wrote back in 1977 that won the AOA national medical journalism award that year; you can read it here: https://tinyurl.com/w4ap3zt9 Though somewhat dated today, it is accurate history up to that point, and will help you understand how we got to the current point with two separate medical professions in the United States. When OU-COM was established by the Ohio General Assembly in 1975 it was the tenth osteopathic college in the nation, and only the second at a state university -- the rest were private schools. The first state-supported osteopathic college was at Michigan State University. There are now about 30 D.O. schools with a mixture of private and state control. It has been deemed, as a result, the fastest growing health-care profession. In closing, I will point out that D.O.s have risen to the highest level in federal government with one D.O., now retired, having served many years as the director of one of the National Institutes of Health. He was Murray Goldstein, D.O., who was for many years the director of what was then the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [Stroke is now a separate institute.]

Great article and no doubt OU-HCOM is a great asset to the state.

I think the medical school helps with the overall image of the university. I just don't think it matters quite as much in specifically recruiting undergraduates. When I was younger, people referred to UC as a "Big Ten level medical school attached to a community college." It didn't really do much much to enhance their reputation as an undergraduate college. UC began to improve and attract more and better students only when they specifically focused on increasing the quality and experience of being an undergraduate there.

UC's basketball press in the 90s was as much negative (UNLV-East) as positive. I don't think it did a damned thing to move the college forward either, as Huggins was long gone when UC began to move forward as an undergraduate college. While that may have coincided peripherally with their brief stint in the Big East, the real underlying reason was that they got serious about being a quality undergraduate school, moved to selective admissions and invested in the campus and in financial aid.