Marathon and Iron Man

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Is it worth listing on applications that you have completed a marathon and an iron man?

List them among your hobbies. Don't take individual spots for each one.

Definitely worth including but, as above, not as their own activities.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

Originally Posted by Seven Costanza

Is it worth listing on applications that you have completed a marathon and an iron man?

Hell yeah! Most people don't even leave the library let alone do an iron man.

But like others have said, just make a "hobbies" section. Don't list them separately.

I ran the Boston marathon for charity. Part of the run I had to raise 4,000 for the MFNE, so I listed the event but as under volunteer activities. It was an interesting talking point at interviews....except for the doctor who told me I didn't look like a marathoner....

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

I ran the Boston marathon for charity. Part of the run I had to raise 4,000 for the MFNE, so I listed the event but as under volunteer activities. It was an interesting talking point at interviews....except for the doctor who told me I didn't look like a marathoner....

How did you go about running it for charity and raising money for an organization? I'd like to do that

[QUOTE=annabanana1690;12679630]I ran the Boston marathon for charity. Part of the run I had to raise 4,000 for the MFNE, so I listed the event but as under volunteer activities. It was an interesting talking point at interviews....except for the doctor who told me I didn't look like a marathoner....[/QUOTE]


This **** makes me laugh lol.

How did you react to that? They sometimes purposely put you on the spot.

Well I am a distance D1 swimmer so I told them thats why I am so much more muscular/ not emaciated. But I was very mad especially cuz the interviewer was an older man and I am a female...such an inappropriate comment...

I included them in my app and a lot of interviewers commented on them in a very positive way, as in it's badass to do that while premed.

It speaks to your character, commitment, grit, and ability to juggle training multiple hours a week while in school, work, shadowing, etc.

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

Well I am a distance D1 swimmer so I told them thats why I am so much more muscular/ not emaciated. But I was very mad especially cuz the interviewer was an older man and I am a female...such an inappropriate comment...

What difference does age/gender make on being inappropriate? Jw, not defending him

It's inappropriate for a person in a position of power to make a comment on the body of a person who wants something from them (i.e. a medi al school acceptance) ESPECIALLY if that person is of the opposite sex. I've spoken to my advisor about this and technically the comment bordered on harassment.

Edit: it would still be an inappropriate comment if the interviewer was a young female doctor, however the fact he was an older male made it worse.

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

I included them in my app and a lot of interviewers commented on them in a very positive way, as in it's badass to do that while premed.

It speaks to your character, commitment, grit, and ability to juggle training multiple hours a week while in school, work, shadowing, etc.

Cool thanks for the input. Where did you do your iron man? Did you get the iron man tattoo after? My brother is insisting I get it.

Originally Posted by Seven Costanza

Cool thanks for the input. Where did you do your iron man? Did you get the iron man tattoo after? My brother is insisting I get it.

From one tri guy to another: Super tool move...unless you won...at kona.

Originally Posted by Seven Costanza

Where did you do your iron man? Did you get the iron man tattoo after? My brother is insisting I get it.

Louisville, Lake Placid, Coeur d'Alene and St. George here. And then about... 30 marathons, countless halves/sprints/etc?

Stopped doing so many tris tho when I became a medic and took a crazy pay cut. For a while back there I was spending 15-20k a year on coaching, training, bikes, pool fees, travel to races

No tats... thought about it, but glad I ended up not getting them. I do have the dorky USAT sticker on my truck tho

What was your race?

Of all teh ones I've done, gotta say Lake Placid was my absolute FAVE course... gorgeous country, GREAT crowd, and a ripper of a downhill (I am all about the down!) ... although Louisville is my best race PR- total current factor in the Ohio river.

Yeah I vote no on the tattoo...kind of a tool move...

Plus I REFUSE to tattoo my body with a brand-name logo, which the Dot-M is...

Originally Posted by Seven Costanza

Is it worth listing on applications that you have completed an iron man?

You built your own suit of armor, and have used it to save the world on countless occasions? congrats!

Did my first mud run this last weekend. I think I might have found a new addiction~

Sports based ECs are a very good thing to have on your apps but as above poster stated don't take up too much space list it all in one if you can.

Originally Posted by Seven Costanza

Cool thanks for the input. Where did you do your iron man? Did you get the iron man tattoo after? My brother is insisting I get it.

Had a friend get a tattoo after his first marathon - it turned out well but totally useless after his second and third marathons. Now it seems toolish. I'd go with what the previous poster said - not unless it's Kona.

I wouldn't list something like the Ironman on your med school applications. That could make the adcoms think you are just a meathead and not a serious student. Listing a Mensa membership, however, proves that you are intellectually capable and belong in medical school.













Yes, I am joking

Originally Posted by BeanDip4All

Louisville, Lake Placid, Coeur d'Alene and St. George here. And then about... 30 marathons, countless halves/sprints/etc?

Stopped doing so many tris tho when I became a medic and took a crazy pay cut. For a while back there I was spending 15-20k a year on coaching, training, bikes, pool fees, travel to races

No tats... thought about it, but glad I ended up not getting them. I do have the dorky USAT sticker on my truck tho

What was your race?

Of all teh ones I've done, gotta say Lake Placid was my absolute FAVE course... gorgeous country, GREAT crowd, and a ripper of a downhill (I am all about the down!) ... although Louisville is my best race PR- total current factor in the Ohio river.

which year did you do it in? I love that race, though the current is favorable for the swim, I'd say the scorching heat cancels out any overall benefit.

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

It's inappropriate for a person in a position of power to make a comment on the body of a person who wants something from them (i.e. a medi al school acceptance) ESPECIALLY if that person is of the opposite sex. I've spoken to my advisor about this and technically the comment bordered on harassment.

Edit: it would still be an inappropriate comment if the interviewer was a young female doctor, however the fact he was an older male made it worse.

I disagree. I am a former D1 distance runner (XC/Track), and am more built than your average looking Kenyan. I got that comment frequently, and never thought anything of it. It is just a factual statement, there is nothing "sexual" or "inappropriate" about it. He simply said you do not appear to be a marathon runner, no need to get worked up over it.

I included my marathon in hobbies (along with other things in that section) and got positive responses at interviews, they always ask what you like to do for fun and this was an easy conversation piece

Originally Posted by cuculici1

I disagree. I am a former D1 distance runner (XC/Track), and am more built than your average looking Kenyan. I got that comment frequently, and never thought anything of it. It is just a factual statement, there is nothing "sexual" or "inappropriate" about it. He simply said you do not appear to be a marathon runner, no need to get worked up over it.

Let me restate. I felt very uncomfortable and since I am very body conscious I was upset by the comment. I think in an interview setting the interviewer should never comment on the body of the interviewer. You can think what you want but I was offended and upset by the comment.

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

Let me restate. I felt very uncomfortable and since I am very body conscious I was upset by the comment. I think in an interview setting the interviewer should never comment on the body of the interviewer. You can think what you want but I was offended and upset by the comment.

I think the point is, it isn't all about you. You can get offended about whatever you want, but you better grow a thicker skin if you want to actually make it through medical training. You being "body conscious" and "upset by the comment" doesn't matter; unless the interviewer was actually making an inappropriate advance toward you, and it doesn't sound like he was, you need to get over yourself. The "I'm offended by that" attitude these days is idiotic, expecting everyone else to not only read people's minds about what might offend someone, but also censor their opinions to appease everyone.

Okay I was sharing a story. I am self conscious because I was anorexic all through high school. I can take it however I want. You do not get to say that I need to grow a thicker skin or I won't make it through medical school. You know nothing about me, and if you did you would understand why I was upset. You need to learn to look further than the surface before making assumptions, I hope you get a chance to do so in medical school.

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

Okay I was sharing a story. I am self conscious because I was anorexic all through high school. I can take it however I want. You do not get to say that I need to grow a thicker skin or I won't make it through medical school. You know nothing about me, and if you did you would understand why I was upset. You need to learn to look further than the surface before making assumptions, I hope you get a chance to do so in medical school.

Just so you know, I agree with you. The comment was totally inappropriate. Don't let anybody gaslight you into thinking otherwise.

Originally Posted by theseeker4

I think the point is, it isn't all about you. You can get offended about whatever you want, but you better grow a thicker skin if you want to actually make it through medical training. You being "body conscious" and "upset by the comment" doesn't matter; unless the interviewer was actually making an inappropriate advance toward you, and it doesn't sound like he was, you need to get over yourself. The "I'm offended by that" attitude these days is idiotic, expecting everyone else to not only read people's minds about what might offend someone, but also censor their opinions to appease everyone.

If you believe that it's not all about her (perceptions of the event), you definitely haven't taken any sort of corporate-level sexual harassment training anytime in the last, oh, 20 years or so. Ever since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case made international news, people have had to be exceedingly careful about what they say in professional situations. This is a situation where someone in a position of power with direct control over another person's career path made a comment that could be conceived as inappropriate in a professional setting. A well-written letter to the college's HR department would likely cause all sorts of chaos if she choose to pursue it. Also about a 50/50 chance on whether it would completely backfire on her, depending on how many friends the guy had and what their feelings on the whole thing were.


On the tattoo issue, I think it would have to be more about your personal feelings on tattoos than anything. Some people get ink to mark important occasions in their lives and create a permanent reminder of those times. Some get ink because they got drunk on a Friday and stumbled into a shop with a bunch of buddies. If you're the former, I'd definitely consider it, if you aren't someone who loves them, I'd think long and hard about getting one just because "my cousin tells me I need to and everyone gets them".

Originally Posted by NightGod

If you believe that it's not all about her (perceptions of the event), you definitely haven't taken any sort of corporate-level sexual harassment training anytime in the last, oh, 20 years or so. Ever since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case made international news, people have had to be exceedingly careful about what they say in professional situations. This is a situation where someone in a position of power with direct control over another person's career path made a comment that could be conceived as inappropriate in a professional setting. A well-written letter to the college's HR department would likely cause all sorts of chaos if she choose to pursue it. Also about a 50/50 chance on whether it would completely backfire on her, depending on how many friends the guy had and what their feelings on the whole thing were.


On the tattoo issue, I think it would have to be more about your personal feelings on tattoos than anything. Some people get ink to mark important occasions in their lives and create a permanent reminder of those times. Some get ink because they got drunk on a Friday and stumbled into a shop with a bunch of buddies. If you're the former, I'd definitely consider it, if you aren't someone who loves them, I'd think long and hard about getting one just because "my cousin tells me I need to and everyone gets them".

I don't get your point. There is no comparison between the Thomas/Hill case and this incident, none. In that case, there was explicit sexual/pornographic reference involved. Here, the doctor interviewing the poster simply stated that she did not look like a marathon runner. This is in fact accurate, since the poster is a swimmer (who typically have more muscular/fat bearing bodies than distance runners). Was it necessary for him to say this? No. Was it inappropriate? No. It was merely an opinion that was based on factual evidence. Not everyone (including myself, despite running 80+ miles per week) will look like an emaciated Kenyan distance runner. As such, it seems ridiculous to get worked up over such a frivolous comment.

Originally Posted by annabanana1690

Okay I was sharing a story. I am self conscious because I was anorexic all through high school. I can take it however I want. You do not get to say that I need to grow a thicker skin or I won't make it through medical school. You know nothing about me, and if you did you would understand why I was upset. You need to learn to look further than the surface before making assumptions, I hope you get a chance to do so in medical school.

Ironically, that was kind of my whole point. YOU need to look further than the surface before jumping to conclusions about the interviewer's intent of his comment, which at worst was slightly rude, certainly not harassment or inappropriate. YOU are the one judging things through your very, very skewed lens and that is why YOU need to get over yourself. I can say that with confidence based on your comments in this thread alone.

Like I said, it isn't all about you. You can, in fact, take it however you want, but you come across as a hyper-sensitive nut job when you project your problems onto everyone else, like you have in this thread. Like I said, get over yourself, and follow your own advice I highlighted above for you.

Originally Posted by cuculici1

I don't get your point. There is no comparison between the Thomas/Hill case and this incident, none. In that case, there was explicit sexual/pornographic reference involved. Here, the doctor interviewing the poster simply stated that she did not look like a marathon runner. This is in fact accurate, since the poster is a swimmer (who typically have more muscular/fat bearing bodies than distance runners). Was it necessary for him to say this? No. Was it inappropriate? No. It was merely an opinion that was based on factual evidence. Not everyone (including myself, despite running 80+ miles per week) will look like an emaciated Kenyan distance runner. As such, it seems ridiculous to get worked up over such a frivolous comment.

I'm not saying it was anything like the Thomas/Hill case, I'm saying that, since that time, the definition of what could be construed as harassment has changed greatly. Companies spend huge amounts of money on sexual harassment training every year because of how little it takes to fall under the category of questionable behavior and they take it very seriously because of the potential for lost time and money due to lawsuits. At the very least, it was a very inappropriate comment for a professional setting, even more so when you take into consideration that it was an interview. Whether or not it would pass the litmus test of a legally actionable suit is more borderline, but it could honestly go either way these days and would depend on the individual state's laws and previous cases.

Originally Posted by theseeker4

Ironically, that was kind of my whole point. YOU need to look further than the surface before jumping to conclusions about the interviewer's intent of his comment, which at worst was slightly rude, certainly not harassment or inappropriate. YOU are the one judging things through your very, very skewed lens and that is why YOU need to get over yourself. I can say that with confidence based on your comments in this thread alone.

Like I said, it isn't all about you. You can, in fact, take it however you want, but you come across as a hyper-sensitive nut job when you project your problems onto everyone else, like you have in this thread. Like I said, get over yourself, and follow your own advice I highlighted above for you.

That's actually where you're wrong. Harassment actually IS about the perceptions of the person receiving the comments. One person you work with might be perfectly fine with you telling the filthiest jokes you know and might fire them right back to you. Tell those same jokes to someone else and you could find yourself being given a paid vacation while they conduct an investigation that would very likely end with you being fired and basically unemployable anywhere that paid more than minimum wage. It's been a volatile topic in the corporate world for quite a while now and most people have learned that it's better to err far on the side of caution while in the workplace.

Originally Posted by NightGod

That's actually where you're wrong. Harassment actually IS about the perceptions of the person receiving the comments. One person you work with might be perfectly fine with you telling the filthiest jokes you know and might fire them right back to you. Tell those same jokes to someone else and you could find yourself being given a paid vacation while they conduct an investigation that would very likely end with you being fired and basically unemployable anywhere that paid more than minimum wage. It's been a volatile topic in the corporate world for quite a while now and most people have learned that it's better to err far on the side of caution while in the workplace.

Except there is a definite difference between telling filthy jokes, and making a benign comment. Or are you really thinking a supervisor telling one of his employees "Great job!" is completely inappropriate and harassment if the employee takes it as him flirting, even if that thought never entered his mind? Are you actually arguing that nothing matters but how someone interprets a comment?

Originally Posted by NightGod

I'm not saying it was anything like the Thomas/Hill case, I'm saying that, since that time, the definition of what could be construed as harassment has changed greatly. Companies spend huge amounts of money on sexual harassment training every year because of how little it takes to fall under the category of questionable behavior and they take it very seriously because of the potential for lost time and money due to lawsuits. At the very least, it was a very inappropriate comment for a professional setting, even more so when you take into consideration that it was an interview. Whether or not it would pass the litmus test of a legally actionable suit is more borderline, but it could honestly go either way these days and would depend on the individual state's laws and previous cases.

Eh probably not. It's a one on one interview, nobody else around to back her up and a one time off thing. The interviewer could easily say "yes we talked about her running hobby but she must have misinterpreted what I said" and make something up. Nothing would happen about it. I wouldn't really go overboard about it although it is kind of a weird comment. Maybe it was directed to see how she would take it and if she really was a marathon runner.

Oh wow this thread took an unexpected turn...

Originally Posted by theseeker4

Except there is a definite difference between telling filthy jokes, and making a benign comment. Or are you really thinking a supervisor telling one of his employees "Great job!" is completely inappropriate and harassment if the employee takes it as him flirting, even if that thought never entered his mind? Are you actually arguing that nothing matters but how someone interprets a comment?

He commented on her physical characteristics. In the vein of the example you have, here's one: It's perfectly fine to say "I like your dress" whereas it's borderline to say "that dress looks great on you". That's because in the first example you're commenting on an article of clothing and in the example you're commenting on a person's physical appearance. Yes, this is actually an example used in sexual harassment training given by a multi-national corporation. Many states have a standard they call "reasonable person", as in "would reasonable person be upset by that comment?" Of course, this is open to how well a lawyer sells the story to a jury. Look at this thread as a microcosm of a potential jury pool-some people have thought it was no big deal, some have completely agreed with her. Like I said, I could see this going either way if one side or the other had an exceptional attorney.

All of that said, in the end, it was a wholly inappropriate comment to make during a professional interview. More than likely the guy really meant nothing by it and is just a bit socially inept when it comes to professional behavior standards. Or maybe he has a history of this sort of borderline behavior and his HR department is waiting for one last complaint to chuck him out the door. Or maybe he knows he can dance the line because a scared pre-med isn't likely to make life difficult for an interviewer and it's actually worked out for him once, 10 years ago, when some co-ed was desperate to get in and he's hoping for a repeat. Hard to tell without personally knowing the guy and what other people's perceptions of him might be.

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Oh wow this thread took an unexpected turn...

I know, right?

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Oh wow this thread took an unexpected turn...

And that NEVER happens on SDN

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Oh wow this thread took an unexpected turn...

yea I can't believe the comment 'you don't look like a marathon runner' took up so much controversy. Obviously to determine appropriateness we first need knowledge of the interviewee's open marathon times.

Oh yeah I'm not surprised by the comment if she's "running" a 5-6 hour marathon for charity and running a 3-4 hour marathon. Huge difference

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Oh yeah I'm not surprised by the comment if she's "running" a 5-6 hour marathon for charity and running a 3-4 hour marathon. Huge difference

thats not how the boston marathon works, you cant just sign up and run the boston marathon, for women our age, the qualifying time is like 3:30, and has to be done at pre-approved qualifying marathon, so despite doing it for charity, I doubt it took her 5-6 hours.
just sayin

Originally Posted by calvnandhobbs68

Eh probably not. It's a one on one interview, nobody else around to back her up and a one time off thing. The interviewer could easily say "yes we talked about her running hobby but she must have misinterpreted what I said" and make something up. Nothing would happen about it. I wouldn't really go overboard about it although it is kind of a weird comment. Maybe it was directed to see how she would take it and if she really was a marathon runner.

Yeah, I definitely think - especially in the context of a medical school interview - the interviewer made the comment to see the reaction.

This situation would be like someone making a big bet in a poker game (marathon running is a big commitment) and then someone else at the table reaching at their chips to look for a tell to see if the big better is bluffing.

Originally Posted by linebacker57

thats not how the boston marathon works, you cant just sign up and run the boston marathon, for women our age, the qualifying time is like 3:30, and has to be done at pre-approved qualifying marathon, so despite doing it for charity, I doubt it took her 5-6 hours.
just sayin

Except that you can get in to Boston through a charity slot. My qualifying time for Boston was 2:48 (had to be sub-3:10). If you are part of one of the many charities involved you don't have a qualifying time.

You are wrong...not everyone HAS to have a qualifying time.

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Except that you can get in to Boston through a charity slot. My qualifying time for Boston was 2:48 (had to be sub-3:10). If you are part of one of the many charities involved you don't have a qualifying time.

You are wrong...not everyone HAS to have a qualifying time.

This. I've run marathons for charity, but I'd never do Boston for charity unless I actually qualified . That's a runners holy grail, kind of like how hockey players don't ever touch the Stanley cup unless they won it. Despite that some people don't share my way of thinking. I think I read somewhere that around 50% of Boston runners don't qualify and are either charity or promotional registrants.

Congrats on your amazing time ironman. Out of my four my pr is a 3:51, suspect I'll get to Boston as a 73 year old doc-retiree

What's BS is that I didn't even get in!!! If you get a qualifying time, you still have to apply for the lottery to get in. Yet, you can join a charity and run with no qualifying time...as about 40% do. BS how lots of guys like me running sub 3 hours and women running sub 3:30 can't get in. I wish Boston was run like Ironman in that you have to qualify like for the holy grail (Kona)

Originally Posted by theseeker4

I wouldn't list something like the Ironman on your med school applications. That could make the adcoms think you are just a meathead and not a serious student. Listing a Mensa membership, however, proves that you are intellectually capable and belong in medical school.


Yes, I am joking

I was about to punch you in the face through the internet but then I scrolled down.

I need a bigger resolution monitor, damn.

Originally Posted by pfaction

i was about to punch you in the face through the internet but then i scrolled down.

I need a bigger resolution monitor, damn.

lol

Originally Posted by Ironmandoc

Except that you can get in to Boston through a charity slot. My qualifying time for Boston was 2:48 (had to be sub-3:10). If you are part of one of the many charities involved you don't have a qualifying time.

You are wrong...not everyone HAS to have a qualifying time.

I was unaware of that. That is some serious BS. It almost seems like it would be embarrassing for those people. Thats like getting to DH in the world series just because your the president of the company with the naming rights to the ball park, except everyone is just gonna watch you come up to bat, and wear the golden sombrero

Originally Posted by linebacker57

thats not how the boston marathon works, you cant just sign up and run the boston marathon, for women our age, the qualifying time is like 3:30, and has to be done at pre-approved qualifying marathon, so despite doing it for charity, I doubt it took her 5-6 hours.
just sayin

interviewer: "well everything about your application looks good, we'll let you know our decision after we research your marathon finishing times, so long as they are sub 3:30 you're in!"

Originally Posted by linebacker57

I was unaware of that. That is some serious BS. It almost seems like it would be embarrassing for those people. Thats like getting to DH in the world series just because your the president of the company with the naming rights to the ball park, except everyone is just gonna watch you come up to bat, and wear the golden sombrero

I don't think it's a bad thing that the organization that runs Boston uses the fame of their run to raise money for organizations...

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)