Biggest Pre-Med/Medicine Career Misconceptions

[ems2doc]

Why is it that so many pre-med "advisors" know so little? You know who my pre-med "advisor" was? It was a combination of SDN and some med school friends.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NickNaylor]

One misconception that has always bothered me is: "if so-and-so has a family member in medicine, then he/she is guaranteed admission into medical school because #nepotism."

Just my n=1 story, but having family in medicine has actually made things relatively difficult. The only "edge" I have is that I really understand the commitment of medicine - that certain specialties are not jobs, they are lifestyles. But as for getting a leg up? My "connections" actually point-blank refused to let me shadow them or any acquaintances in the hospital, saying "go find your own opportunities." Same held true for research. Therefore, I had to think pretty hard about other, more creative ways to obtain research/clinical experience. In short, my "ties" only forced me work harder.

Now that I'm applying, I feel that I have to work a little extra hard to convince interviewers that I know "medicine is not my birthright," and that I know that just because I have familial ties does not make me any stronger/better/smarter/etc.

Just my 2 cents, after seeing a somewhat frustrating fb post from a friend, ranting about how so-and-so only got into medical school "cause daddy is pretty popular there." Believe me, sir, it takes more than a family connection to get a seat in medical school.

Of course there are always exceptions; nepotism is a pervasive creature, after all. But I wish people weren't so quick to attribute the sole cause of acceptance to "connections" (for those with connection, of course), because there's often much more to the story.

Your experience strikes me as pretty unusual. I've talked with many applicants that had personal connections with physicians that they used to get shadowing and other clinical experiences done. I personally don't see any problem with that as that relationship won't inherently make them take anything useful away from the experience.

"Nepotism" in the form of legacy/"connection" admissions absolutely exists. It's probably not all that prevalent, but it's certainly out there. My institution, for example, absolutely offers interviews to people with alumni connections or connections to "big name" people based on their recommendation. The dean of the school can actually add notes to that effect for individual applicants that are visible to everyone (e.g., "alumni rec"). How far do those sorts of things go? I have no idea. I would like to think that someone who is otherwise clearly incompetent and has zero chance of getting accepted wouldn't be interviewed, but the cynic in me says that isn't the case. Even in these "courtesy" interviews, though, there's no chance they'll get accepted if they otherwise aren't qualified or if they have a terrible interview. "Nepotism" can help you get your foot in the door, but I don't think it will in and of itself get you an acceptance if you otherwise wouldn't be able to get one.

 

[anbuitachi]

Why is it that so many pre-med "advisors" know so little? You know who my pre-med "advisor" was? It was a combination of SDN and some med school friends.

because pre med students tend to be above avg in intelligence. i dont think thats a requirement for pre med advisors. Plus medicine has changed so much in the past decade in terms of competitiveness and stuff, if they dont keep up, they'll def be giving bad advices

 

[Baron Samedi]

Off the top of my head, some fields that require a physics background:

Radiology
Rad onc
Critical care
Cardiology
Orthopedics
PMR
Anesthesia
Aerospace
Pulmonary


I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, too.

 

[aprimenumber]

On another note, I feel like shadowing doctors is kind of a sketchy business. At least at my school, the only way any of us were ever able to shadow a doctor was through personal connections (i.e. parent knows someone who knows someone, friend knows someone, professor knows someone). Even though I filled out paperwork and signed forms, it still felt a little intrusive to walk in with a physician when he/she saw a patient, and there were definitely patients who were uncomfortable (I typically just waited outside or in the physicians' work room during those visits). I don't know, does anyone else feel that way? I understand the need to make sure you're going into the right field, but I feel that the process is really unorganized and almost borderline unethical.
EDIT: Sorry if that last blurb is a little off-topic. I thought of it because nepotism came up earlier, and I feel like nepotism is really beneficial towards securing shadowing experiences.

 

[gyngyn]

On another note, I feel like shadowing doctors is kind of a sketchy business.

I must cautiously agree with you.
Though I can see the potential value, shadowing inherently favors the well-connected in a process that already gives a big advantage to the better off .

 

[onceawolverine]

Your experience strikes me as pretty unusual. I've talked with many applicants that had personal connections with physicians that they used to get shadowing and other clinical experiences done. I personally don't see any problem with that as that relationship won't inherently make them take anything useful away from the experience.

"Nepotism" in the form of legacy/"connection" admissions absolutely exists. It's probably not all that prevalent, but it's certainly out there. My institution, for example, absolutely offers interviews to people with alumni connections or connections to "big name" people based on their recommendation. The dean of the school can actually add notes to that effect for individual applicants that are visible to everyone (e.g., "alumni rec"). How far do those sorts of things go? I have no idea. I would like to think that someone who is otherwise clearly incompetent and has zero chance of getting accepted wouldn't be interviewed, but the cynic in me says that isn't the case. Even in these "courtesy" interviews, though, there's no chance they'll get accepted if they otherwise aren't qualified or if they have a terrible interview. "Nepotism" can help you get your foot in the door, but I don't think it will in and of itself get you an acceptance if you otherwise wouldn't be able to get one.

I know that legacy/connection bumps are pervasive in this admissions process; there's no point in denying that. I just get frustrated when people solely attribute an applicant's success to their connections, or familial ties. It's one factor, not the whole story.

So I guess the misconception that irritates me is just: "so-and-so is only getting into medical school cause their parents are doctors." It takes more than that to get in, although I'll grant that in some cases it doesn't take much more.

 

[NickNaylor]

I know that legacy/connection bumps are pervasive in this admissions process; there's no point in denying that. I just get frustrated when people solely attribute an applicant's success to their connections, or familial ties. It's one factor, not the whole story.

So I guess the misconception that irritates me is just: "so-and-so is only getting into medical school cause their parents are doctors." It takes more than that to get in, although I'll grant that in some cases it doesn't take much more.

Definitely agree with you. In fact, I look at applicants with both parents as doctors with more scrutiny - particular in their motivation for becoming a physician, as you allude to in your previous post - than I do other applicants. It's natural and expected for people to have some innate interest in whatever it is their parents do for a living, particularly if it's something as "successful" as being a physician. Despite that, though, it's important that they have their own interest in becoming a physician and that that interest is well-explored and the understanding of what being a clinician means be well-formed. I think applicants with a "legacy" of doctors have some advantages (e.g., direct connections to physicians to shadow, possibly ties to an academic center for CV boosting, etc.), but I don't think you get any advantage by virtue of the fact that you have physicians as parents. If anything, I'd consider it a disadvantage because of the above.

 

[onceawolverine]

Definitely agree with you. In fact, I look at applicants with both parents as doctors with more scrutiny - particular in their motivation for becoming a physician, as you allude to in your previous post - than I do other applicants. It's natural and expected for people to have some innate interest in whatever it is their parents do for a living, particularly if it's something as "successful" as being a physician. Despite that, though, it's important that they have their own interest in becoming a physician and that that interest is well-explored and the understanding of what being a clinician means be well-formed. I think applicants with a "legacy" of doctors have some advantages (e.g., direct connections to physicians to shadow, possibly ties to an academic center for CV boosting, etc.), but I don't think you get any advantage by virtue of the fact that you have physicians as parents. If anything, I'd consider it a disadvantage because of the above.

My sentiments, precisely.

 

[fmpak93]

Thank you, I knew my physics degree wasn't going to be a waste.

On another note, I feel like shadowing doctors is kind of a sketchy business. At least at my school, the only way any of us were ever able to shadow a doctor was through personal connections (i.e. parent knows someone who knows someone, friend knows someone, professor knows someone). Even though I filled out paperwork and signed forms, it still felt a little intrusive to walk in with a physician when he/she saw a patient, and there were definitely patients who were uncomfortable (I typically just waited outside or in the physicians' work room during those visits). I don't know, does anyone else feel that way? I understand the need to make sure you're going into the right field, but I feel that the process is really unorganized and almost borderline unethical.
EDIT: Sorry if that last blurb is a little off-topic. I thought of it because nepotism came up earlier, and I feel like nepotism is really beneficial towards securing shadowing experiences.

I think shadowing is a silly requirement. Do it if you'd like for personal experience, but otherwise it's ehh. The cardiologist i shadowed didn't even know what shadowing was or that premeds are required to do these kinds of things nowadays.

 

[mostlyharmless1]

I think shadowing is a silly requirement. Do it if you'd like for personal experience, but otherwise it's ehh. The cardiologist i shadowed didn't even know what shadowing was or that premeds are required to do these kinds of things nowadays.

I mean, I personally felt that shadowing allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the field, and it helped confirm my desire to become a physician. I know people who decided that medicine wasn't for them after their shadowing experiences. I would imagine that medical schools definitely don't want students who are intellectually capable of becoming great doctors to drop out with debt after realizing that they don't really like the nature of medicine.

But on the other hand, potentially violating patient privacy needlessly and providing an additional advantage to the well-connected and affluent. Ehhhhhh.

I think something needs to change, but I have no idea how to go about it.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

When I shadowed, I had to fill out HIPAA forms and go thru orientation and training. I think shadowing is necessary, but it seems like there needs to be more universal protocols and safeguards in place.

 

[raiderette]

My shadowing experiences have not been all that great. In very busy places I felt like I was i the way. Patients did not feel comfortable with me there and the physicians were nice, but too overworked to talk to me much about how they feel. Now my time with a pathologist was great. He dished the dirt on everything from regretting his MD/PhD to how he wished he had done the MD/MBA program, to how much he hates the new hospital software, etc. I learn so much more from volunteering at the free clinic though.

 

[DermViser]

Your experience strikes me as pretty unusual. I've talked with many applicants that had personal connections with physicians that they used to get shadowing and other clinical experiences done. I personally don't see any problem with that as that relationship won't inherently make them take anything useful away from the experience.

"Nepotism" in the form of legacy/"connection" admissions absolutely exists. It's probably not all that prevalent, but it's certainly out there. My institution, for example, absolutely offers interviews to people with alumni connections or connections to "big name" people based on their recommendation. The dean of the school can actually add notes to that effect for individual applicants that are visible to everyone (e.g., "alumni rec"). How far do those sorts of things go? I have no idea. I would like to think that someone who is otherwise clearly incompetent and has zero chance of getting accepted wouldn't be interviewed, but the cynic in me says that isn't the case. Even in these "courtesy" interviews, though, there's no chance they'll get accepted if they otherwise aren't qualified or if they have a terrible interview. "Nepotism" can help you get your foot in the door, but I don't think it will in and of itself get you an acceptance if you otherwise wouldn't be able to get one.

I command you to be positive!

 

[DermViser]

When I shadowed, I had to fill out HIPAA forms and go thru orientation and training. I think shadowing is necessary, but it seems like there needs to be more universal protocols and safeguards in place.

 

[DermViser]

My shadowing experiences have not been all that great. In very busy places I felt like I was i the way. Patients did not feel comfortable with me there and the physicians were nice, but too overworked to talk to me much about how they feel. Now my time with a pathologist was great. He dished the dirt on everything from regretting his MD/PhD to how he wished he had done the MD/MBA program, to how much he hates the new hospital software, etc. I learn so much more from volunteering at the free clinic though.

There's a reason the pathologist was more able to spend time and shoot the **** with you than the clinician.

 

[Stagg737]

The one I ALWAYS get:

"Oh you're going to be a doctor! So you'll be able to fix my fill-in-the-blank in a few years for me!" Somehow I always get the feeling my friends/family expect me to do it for free too...

That I'll be rich by the time I"m 40 and able to retire to a private island by the time I'm 50-55.

That because I'm in med school I already know how to diagnose someone and tell them what they should do.


Specifically pre-med ones are a little tougher but I remember a few:

According to my pre-med advisor hitting a 30 MCAT means you should get accepted somewhere. Or that my 29Q with a 3.2 GPA and applications submitted by November would make me competitive at most 'low and mid-tier' MD schools.

Getting a few C's or even a D is the kiss of death that will prevent you from getting into med school.

The worst one is probably that doing a medical mission trip abroad is a unique experience that is going to set you apart as an applicant. This one killed me as I relied heavily on this during my first application cycle.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

I mean, I personally felt that shadowing allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the field, and it helped confirm my desire to become a physician. I know people who decided that medicine wasn't for them after their shadowing experiences. I would imagine that medical schools definitely don't want students who are intellectually capable of becoming great doctors to drop out with debt after realizing that they don't really like the nature of medicine.

But on the other hand, potentially violating patient privacy needlessly and providing an additional advantage to the well-connected and affluent. Ehhhhhh.

I think something needs to change, but I have no idea how to go about it.

I'm far from well connected or affluent and I have been able to shadow a few community physicians. I was on the fence about medicine until I shadowed and got to see and learn about what a physician actually does and what I'm putting in all this effort toward.

 

[mostlyharmless1]

I'm far from well connected or affluent and I have been able to shadow a few community physicians. I was on the fence about medicine until I shadowed and got to see and learn about what a physician actually does and what I'm putting in all this effort toward.

I wasn't saying that you have to be well-connected or affluent to shadow physicians. I said that it's an additional advantage to someone who's well-connected. Having a physician parent, for example, would likely make your life a little easier when trying to find a physician to shadow since your parent may have colleagues would would be willing to let a pre-med shadow them. At least at my school, there weren't any programs that matched pre-meds with physicians; the only way for you to really find a physician to shadow was through connections (I remember asking my pre-med advisor for advice, and he told me to find a friend or someone to ask).
EDIT: I suppose one could always ask one's physician if he/she has any colleagues who would be willing to let one shadow them (since I can imagine that shadowing one's personal physician could potentially become a conflict of interest).

 

[Dr. Retractor]

I wasn't saying that you have to be well-connected or affluent to shadow physician. I said that it's an additional advantage to someone who's well-connected. Having a physician parent, for example, would likely make your life a little easier when trying to find a physician to shadow since I'm sure your parent would have colleagues. At least at my school, there weren't any programs that matched pre-meds with physicians; the only way for you to really find a physician to shadow was through connections.
EDIT: I suppose one could always ask one's physician if he/she has any colleagues who would be willing to let one shadow them (since I can imagine that shadowing one's personal physician could potentially become a conflict of interest).

This is obvious. As NickNaylor has stated, students with physician parents are held to more scrutiny.
Mine doesn't either. I just called up doctors' offices and asked if they accepted students for shadowing. 1% of the time, it worked every time.
Curious, how is shadowing your personal physician a conflict of interest?

 

[mostlyharmless1]

Curious, how is shadowing your personal physician a conflict of interest?

It's not uncommon for applicants to ask physicians they've shadowed to write them a LoR. Having your personal physician do so would certainly constitute a conflict of interest (imagine if you have a drug problem that you've confided to your writer when you were their patient).
But even without a LoR being involved, I feel that shadowing your personal physician may introduce a certain professional dimension to your relationship which may compromise your quality of interactions with him/her when you're their patient, if that makes sense. I remember chatting with certain physicians about patients afterwards where the physician expressed their actual feelings towards the patient. Now imagine if that was your personal physician who was telling you that. Would that not possibly change the way you approach your physician-patient relationship?
Of course, like I stated earlier, this could potentially be a conflict of interest. It could also be completely fine if both parties are mature and professional.

 

[gyngyn]

It's not uncommon for applicants to ask physicians they've shadowed to write them a LoR. Having your personal physician do so would certainly constitute a conflict of interest (imagine if you have a drug problem that you've confided to your writer when you were their patient).
But even without a LoR being involved, I feel that shadowing your personal physician may introduce a certain professional dimension to your relationship which may compromise your quality of interactions with him/her when you're their patient, if that makes sense. I remember chatting with certain physicians about patients afterwards where the physician expressed their actual feelings towards the patient. Now imagine if that was your personal physician who was telling you that. Would that not possibly change the way you approach your physician-patient relationship?
Of course, like I stated earlier, this could potentially be a conflict of interest. It could also be completely fine if both parties are mature and professional.

In case anybody is wondering, these letters are considered fluff. Almost anything else is more likely to be helpful in an MD application.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

In case anybody is wondering, these letters are considered fluff. Almost anything else is more likely to be helpful in an MD application.

Not sure if it was you or another adcom but someone said that LORs from MDs are usually just tossed out without being given a thought. Is this true? Would you even look at a LOR from an MD to see if the interaction was more than just shadowing (eg research, mentorship over long periods of time, scribing, etc)?

 

[aprimenumber]

In case anybody is wondering, these letters are considered fluff. Almost anything else is more likely to be helpful in an MD application.

This reminds me of another thing my pre-med advisor told me.
Me: Any other recommendations for how I can improve my application?
Advisor: You should try and see if you can get a letter of recommendation from a doctor you shadow.
Me: Would that really be that important, since doctors are generally very busy, and I'm not sure how much they'd be able to speak for you?
Advisor: It would be helpful, but it's not that important.

 

[gyngyn]

Not sure if it was you or another adcom but someone said that LORs from MDs are usually just tossed out without being given a thought. Is this true? Would you even look at a LOR from an MD to see if the interaction was more than just shadowing (eg research, mentorship over long periods of time, scribing, etc)?

A PI, or very rarely, a professor who happens to be a physician will write a letter. These letters get the same weight that a non-physician letter would receive.

 

[BrCo]

Who are you and what have you done with the real DermViser?!

I command you to be positive!

 

[efle]

why the lack of interest in MD recs, I think the doc I shadowed for ~100 hrs would have been able to write a much more informative letter than any of the large lecture science class profs I've had (even having gone to lots of office hours).

 

[Dr. Retractor]

why the lack of interest in MD recs, I think the doc I shadowed for ~100 hrs would have been able to write a much more informative letter than any of the large lecture science class profs I've had (even having gone to lots of office hours).

I think the point is that adcoms want to know what you're like academically (hence the requirement of professor LORs) and the ability to form relationships with people above you is an important skill. I don't think it really matters how good you are at following a doctor around and staying out of the way. The doc you shadowed may know you're a nice person and can present yourself well/speak intelligently, but can't really talk about your qualities in a way that can't be gleaned from an interview if that makes sense.

 

[FFH]

I wonder if so much of your job with students is like this:

I had some moments like the legally blonde when I did my career transition... Probably looked just as naive. Good thing that my parents actually gave me the skills and the practicality to actually built the ladder for cloud climbing.

 

[BZG64]

.

 

[aalamruad]

That all applicants have an equal chance of being admitted/are all looked at through the same lens.

where'd you hear that ?

 

[BZG64]

.

 

[ProudMD]

You have to be a science major to go to medical school.

 

[NickNaylor]

That all applicants have an equal chance of being admitted/are all looked at through the same lens.

Of course that's not the case. I'm not sure why you think it would be. The person with a 3.2/30 isn't going to be "looked at through the same lens" as the person with a 4.0/40. URMs aren't going to be looked at in the same way as ORMs. People with strong research backgrounds and interests aren't going to be looked at in the same way as people with strong service experiences and ambitions.

I'm not really sure why you would've thought that to not be the case.

 

[reapplicanthelpme2014]

Of course that's not the case. I'm not sure why you think it would be. The person with a 3.2/30 isn't going to be "looked at through the same lens" as the person with a 4.0/40. URMs aren't going to be looked at in the same way as ORMs. People with strong research backgrounds and interests aren't going to be looked at in the same way as people with strong service experiences and ambitions.

I'm not really sure why you would've thought that to not be the case.

That's why they posted it in the "biggest misconceptions" page...chilllllll.

 

[NickNaylor]

That's why they posted it in the "biggest misconceptions" page...chilllllll.

But I'm confused as to why anyone would think that in the first place.

 

[aalamruad]

That's why they posted it in the "biggest misconceptions" page...chilllllll.

Do you really think that's one of the "biggest misconceptions"?

 

[Anicetus]

I still remember the whole "there is a direct correlation with your verbal MCAT score and your score on USMLE step 1"

FALSE. I took the MCAT twice. 34, 38. First verbal score - 10, second verbal score (yes SECOND time taking it) - 9.
Step 1 score - 267
hence.. zero correlation.
The verbal section on the MCAT is ridiculous and the worst predictor of anything

One of my closest friends scored a 14/7/12 on the MCAT and got a 251 on the USMLE. They said something similar to you.

 

[bjb305]

One of my closest friends scored a 14/7/12 on the MCAT and got a 251 on the USMLE. They said something similar to you.

not surprising.. i can read SCIENCE material.. but when you throw in junk about the french revolution, i can't follow it.. i understand the purpose of them trying to test students' abilities to synthesize new material.. but humanity passages like that are NOT a good way to do it

 

[mehc012]

why the lack of interest in MD recs, I think the doc I shadowed for ~100 hrs would have been able to write a much more informative letter than any of the large lecture science class profs I've had (even having gone to lots of office hours).

Your profs should be able to comment on your time management, your thinking ability, punctuation, communication, interactions, critical thinking, etc. No, not all profs will know you that well, but if they don't, that's a reflection on your ability to network and interact. In that case, you can get a good letter, but sometimes have to settle for weak.
The doc you shadowed knows that you can rock a dress shirt and you can stay out of the way when asked to do nothing. Oh, and you generally show up on time. In that case, the best you can hope for is a weak letter, but if you've shadowed less than that 100hrs, you won't even get that.

 

[aalamruad]

Your profs should be able to comment on your time management, your thinking ability, punctuation, communication, interactions, critical thinking, etc. No, not all profs will know you that well, but if they don't, that's a reflection on your ability to network and interact. In that case, you can get a good letter, but sometimes have to settle for weak.
The doc you shadowed knows that you can rock a dress shirt and you can stay out of the way when asked to do nothing. Oh, and you generally show up on time. In that case, the best you can hope for is a weak letter, but if you've shadowed less than that 100hrs, you won't even get that.

Ah, yes.. punctuation! The most important attribute of any future doctor!

(Just wanted to mess with you, good points otherwise)

 

[tymont12]

That you have to pick the "right" major

 

[deleted642188]

From my fellow pre-med classmates....

"That Medicine is the only career that pays enough to start a family/seduce nurses..."
"there's no other career path if I don't go to med school..."
"That I need to NOT major in Biology in order to look 'exceptional/stand out' for the admission committee...."

 

[JimmyB123]

A singular data point won't prove or disprove a **trend**. It would also do you well to note the difference between correlation and causation.

Who cares. He got a 265+ on the boards. Not many people on here can say the same.

 

[efle]

Who cares. He got a 265+ on the boards. Not many people on here can say the same.

Especially since we're in pre allo and none of us have taken the boards.

 

[cs24]

Who cares. He got a 265+ on the boards. Not many people on here can say the same.

Yes, you don't understand statistics either. And FYI, getting a good boards score doesn't make you some flawless deity whose every statement is automatically true and valid.

 

[mehc012]

Ah, yes.. punctuation! The most important attribute of any future doctor!

(Just wanted to mess with you, good points otherwise)

Well, you do want to avoid those pesky misplaced decimal points...

 

[NickNaylor]

Yes, you don't understand statistics either. And FYI, getting a good boards score doesn't make you some flawless deity whose every statement is automatically true and valid.

Clearly you haven't spent enough time on SDN.

 

[Ismet]

Clearly you haven't spent enough time on SDN.

Step 1 is love. Step 1 is life.

 

[MajorBubblez]

Lol I don't know if it falls under this category but one of the most annoying misconceptions is that by declaring yourself pre-med it automatically makes you a doc-in-training. I absolutely can't stand when people claim their major is 'pre-med', as though that automatically makes them a doctor to be. And usually it's with the intent of impressing people.