Funny quotes from "less informed" premeds

[deleted407021]

I like to stay closer to academic feminism than the Women's studies 101 blogsphere. Everyday feminism has a lot of over simplification which bugs me.

Maybe they're trying to make the ideas more consumer friendly?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[touchpause13]

Maybe they're trying to make the ideas more consumer friendly?

Oh I get it for sure. I just prefer to read stuff that challenges me

 

[Aerus]

I agree with you, actually, despite the vaguely smug sigh.

Here is why the "le sigh" is a bit smug, because pages like everday femenism and upworth claim the opposite of what you are saying.
An example from just today:
http://www.upworthy.com/3-posters-about-rape-culture-that-are-totally-worth-sharing?c=ufb1

Just poking a bit of fun at how bastardized things have become Enough derailment from me though.

Le sigh.

The whole point of feminism is to strive for equality between men and women.

However, different groups of feminists may disagree on how to achieve this equality and that might be a reason why feminism has a negative (anti-man) connotation to some people and may seem contradictory to others. In the original sense of feminism, discussing rape outside of its academic definition is fine as long as it does not encourage cultural stigmas such as rape culture (such as telling jokes that attempt to lessen the graveness of rape culture).

Satirizing rape by making rapists the target of the joke is actually progressive for feminism since it demonstrates the fallacy of rape culture in a light that is easier to understand by the general public. But as I said, there are groups of feminists that may disagree.

 

[Aerus]

ON TOPIC:

Me: What do you plan on doing this summer?
Premed Girl: I'm going to go find opportunities to go on medical missions abroad. I'm trying to find programs that will let me learn stuff like performing surgeries.
Me: Isn't that unethical?
Premed Girl: It is here, but it's fine in other countries since they aren't as restrictive.
Me: Won't admissions see that as a bad thing, since it shows that you're unethical?
Premed Girl: No, that's wrong. I will stand out in medical school applications, since I have actual experience while other premeds don't. It works the same way in graduate school and business school applications. Having actual experience is better. And since I'm going out of my way by going to other countries, they will be impressed by how dedicated I am.
Me: Ah okay. Good luck then!

 

[sat0ri]

I like to stay closer to academic feminism than the Women's studies 101 blogsphere. Everyday feminism has a lot of over simplification which bugs me.

I also prefer more rigorous gender studies, but I'm conflicted, because this might be just a "Cartesian masculinization of thought" (Bordo).
Sphew, this is getting way too meta for me.

 

[deleted407021]

ON TOPIC:

Me: What do you plan on doing this summer?
Premed Girl: I'm going to go find opportunities to go on medical missions abroad. I'm trying to find programs that will let me learn stuff like performing surgeries.
Me: Isn't that unethical?
Premed Girl: It is here, but it's fine in other countries since they aren't as restrictive.
Me: Won't admissions see that as a bad thing, since it shows that you're unethical?
Premed Girl: No, that's wrong. I will stand out in medical school applications, since I have actual experience while other premeds don't. It works the same way in graduate school and business school applications. Having actual experience is better. And since I'm going out of my way by going to other countries, they will be impressed by how dedicated I am.
Me: Ah okay. Good luck then!

I hold clamps, retractors and laparoscopes for a surgeon I shadow. Maybe that's what she's getting at?

If not, how is something unethical here, but perfectly fine somewhere else? That makes no sense.

 

[Aerus]

I hold clamps, retractors and laparoscopes for a surgeon I shadow. Maybe that's what she's getting at?

If not, how is something unethical here, but perfectly fine somewhere else? That makes no sense.

She meant actually learning how to do basic surgery, not holding stuff. And she's referring to the restrictions that prevent people from doing these sort of things here not being available in some third world countries.

 

[deleted407021]

She meant actually learning how to do basic surgery, not holding stuff. And she's referring to the restrictions that prevent people from doing these sort of things here not being available in some third world countries.

She's a dingus.

 

[mehc012]

I hold clamps, retractors and laparoscopes for a surgeon I shadow. Maybe that's what she's getting at?

If not, how is something unethical here, but perfectly fine somewhere else? That makes no sense.

Also because even that - holding stuff - is considered a huge liability risk, which is why most premeds do not do these things, or even scrub in. Most hospitals would throw a FIT about something like that (at mine, HR threw a fit even just for shadowing, and told a coworker who was asking about it "if someone else is doing it, just don't even tell me...I don't want to know, and if I did I'd have to stop it"). Those sorts of things are often considered absolutely nonpermissible, and the reason often given, even if not entirely true, is ethics.

So if she WERE getting at clamp-holding, it may be called unethical here and not elsewhere, but what they really mean is that it's a liability.

 

[deleted407021]

Also because even that - holding stuff - is considered a huge liability risk, which is why most premeds do not do these things, or even scrub in. Most hospitals would throw a FIT about something like that (at mine, HR threw a fit even just for shadowing, and told a coworker who was asking about it "if someone else is doing it, just don't even tell me...I don't want to know, and if I did I'd have to stop it"). Those sorts of things are often considered absolutely nonpermissible, and the reason often given, even if not entirely true, is ethics.

So if she WERE getting at clamp-holding, it may be called unethical here and not elsewhere, but what they really mean is that it's a liability.

Well, I guess I'm lucky. I've scrubbed in on 2 out of 4 of the surgeries I've so far attended and the doctor let's me do all kinds of neat stuff. Today, I was responsible for the uterine manipulator during a laparoscopic total hysterectomy. I got to sit between the patients legs and work this "joy stick" like device which raised, lowered and otherwise manipulated her uterus. Hands on experience in the OR is something everyone should get, if they can.

 

[mehc012]

Well, I guess I'm lucky. I've scrubbed in on 2 out of 4 of the surgeries I've so far attended and the doctor let's me do all kinds of neat stuff. Today, I was responsible for the uterine manipulator during a laparoscopic total hysterectomy. I got to sit between the patients legs and work this "joy stick" like device which raised, lowered and otherwise manipulated her uterus. Hands on experience in the OR is something everyone should get, if they can.

Right, because it's cool...but it's definitely not required for an app, and in fact can raise eyebrows sometimes.
I am jelly, of course (though perhaps for the others you've mentioned FAR and above anything to do with the uterus...I don't even like my own, I feel no desire to interact with someone else's!)

 

[deleted407021]

Right, because it's cool...but it's definitely not required for an app, and in fact can raise eyebrows sometimes.
I am jelly, of course (though perhaps for the others you've mentioned FAR and above anything to do with the uterus...I don't even like my own, I feel no desire to interact with someone else's!)

Lol, it just might be, but I think I can demonstrate my exposure to the OR without going into detail about any procedures I was a part of.

The things women have to go through for their health, though.......O_O.

 

[mehc012]

Lol, it just might be, but I think I can demonstrate my exposure to the OR without going into detail about any procedures I was a part of.

The things women have to go through for their health, though.......O_O.

It's ridiculous. And they won't even take 'em out to save you the hassle, even if you have no plans of using them. I know multiple people who would gladly remove their uterus (not the ovaries...as much as hormones suck, NO hormones is worse), but that's not allowed.

 

[Minipi]

Talking with someone in undergrad
Me: So what major are you?
X: I just changed to the pre-med track and selected general studies as my major. I wanted to be a journalist but I hate writing now.
Me: oh cool...so what science classes are you taking next semester? Maybe we'll have something together.
X: I need to keep a high GPA so I'm not going to take any science classes. I heard that you don't have to be a science major to get into med school.
Me: but what about the prerequisites?
X: yeah I'm going to take the mcat later
Me: you still have to take classes like chemistry and biology
X: no you don't because they take any major in medical school
Me: oh yeah you're right (I gave up trying)

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

So I got a couple good ones.

People on this board have told me this
-DOs aren't anywhere close to equivalent to MD
-In some cases its better to go carribean then DO
-DOs are limited in Doctors without Borders

 

[deleted407021]

So I got a couple good ones.

People on this board have told me this
-DOs aren't anywhere close to equivalent to MD
-In some cases its better to go carribean then DO
-DOs are limited in Doctors without Borders

Lol. Premeds bashing physicians is pitiful.

 

[Goro]

I've noticed a more sympathetic view of DOs on SDN, even in the pre-allo forum. I believe the only sources of anti-DO prejudice nowadays in from elderly MDs and ignorant pre-meds, and few scattered residents. Rock on.

So I got a couple good ones.

People on this board have told me this
-DOs aren't anywhere close to equivalent to MD
-In some cases its better to go carribean then DO
-DOs are limited in Doctors without Borders

 

[La Presse]

I was at an early breakfast the other day when a conversation was started about the physician shortage and NP's role in broadening healthcare. A girl piped up and mentioned that most aspiring physicians do not want to do primary care and would rather be specialists to pay off loans. Here's the kicker. She then proceeded to say how generalist physicians have a broader scope of medical knowledge than specialists.

She's waaayyy off.

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

I've noticed a more sympathetic view of DOs on SDN, even in the pre-allo forum. I believe the only sources of anti-DO prejudice nowadays in from elderly MDs and ignorant pre-meds. Rock on.

I have noticed the same. And some older MDs are fine with DO. My dad for example.

 

[orangeman25]

Do you realize that a lot of high-stat applicants on here DO have well-rounded applications that, when reviewed holistically, make them very strong candidates apart from their stats?


Sent from my neural implant using SDN Mobile

I would go so far to say most high stat candidates have things apart from their stats that help them out. Very self-selective pool right there.

 

[Lawpy]

Ochem memories continued...

A la @QofQuimica

I've noticed a more sympathetic view of DOs on SDN, even in the pre-allo forum. I believe the only sources of anti-DO prejudice nowadays in from elderly MDs and ignorant pre-meds. Rock on.

Maturity plays a key role.

 

[235009]

Well, I guess I'm lucky. I've scrubbed in on 2 out of 4 of the surgeries I've so far attended and the doctor let's me do all kinds of neat stuff. Today, I was responsible for the uterine manipulator during a laparoscopic total hysterectomy. I got to sit between the patients legs and work this "joy stick" like device which raised, lowered and otherwise manipulated her uterus. Hands on experience in the OR is something everyone should get, if they can.

it's cool to experience that once but I remember it felt like my arm was going to fall off during the surgery from reaching and trying to hold still

I've noticed a more sympathetic view of DOs on SDN, even in the pre-allo forum. I believe the only sources of anti-DO prejudice nowadays in from elderly MDs and ignorant pre-meds. Rock on.

SDN is so sympathetic to DOs to the point of rampant misinformation, particularly in the pre-DO forum and among pre-DOs on here. it has become even more evident with the upcoming residency merger where pre-DOs and some DO students think that ACGME programs that don't accept DOs now are going to, for some inexplicable reason, start taking DOs. Also the use of the derogatory term "allopathic" litters this board. not surprising that this bias exists since the founder of SDN is a DO.

 

[Supisak]

Well, I guess I'm lucky. I've scrubbed in on 2 out of 4 of the surgeries I've so far attended and the doctor let's me do all kinds of neat stuff. Today, I was responsible for the uterine manipulator during a laparoscopic total hysterectomy. I got to sit between the patients legs and work this "joy stick" like device which raised, lowered and otherwise manipulated her uterus. Hands on experience in the OR is something everyone should get, if they can.

Holding the "joystick" on a LAVH is not "lucky", it is the lowest thing you can do in the OR besides stand to the side, and standing on the side, not scrubbed and away from the field is better than that if you ask me....

 

[deleted407021]

Holding the "joystick" on a LAVH is not "lucky", it is the lowest thing you can do in the OR besides stand to the side, and standing on the side, not scrubbed and away from the field is better than that if you ask me....

You can't rain on my parade!

 

[thesauce]

I was at an early breakfast the other day when a conversation was started about the physician shortage and NP's role in broadening healthcare. A girl piped up and mentioned that most aspiring physicians do not want to do primary care and would rather be specialists to pay off loans. Here's the kicker. She then proceeded to say how generalist physicians have a broader scope of medical knowledge than specialists.

She's waaayyy off.

Huh?

 

[Greasy Pete]

I was at an early breakfast the other day when a conversation was started about the physician shortage and NP's role in broadening healthcare. A girl piped up and mentioned that most aspiring physicians do not want to do primary care and would rather be specialists to pay off loans. Here's the kicker. She then proceeded to say how generalist physicians have a broader scope of medical knowledge than specialists.

She's waaayyy off.

what

 

[QofQuimica]

Ochem memories continued...

A la @QofQuimica
.

 

[nellbot2000]

So I got a couple good ones.

People on this board have told me this
-DOs aren't anywhere close to equivalent to MD
-In some cases its better to go carribean then DO
-DOs are limited in Doctors without Borders

Along the same lines. I had a conversation with a soon to be MD classmate of mine recently. We were discussing MD vs. DO with some pre-meds. He was trying to tell them that Carribean MD is always better than US-DO. I told him that it actually isn't because it's much harder to match back into the US once you leave the US. He didn't understand the actual process of the match at all, and thought it would be fine as long as you were a US citizen. Once I explained it to him he said "I didn't know that was how it works."

You'd think you would want at least some basic understanding of the match considering you are starting medical school, oh in a week! The ignorance doesn't go away kids.

(Edit for autocorrect.)

 

[thesauce]

You'd think you would want at least some basic understanding of the match considering you are starting medical school, oh in a week! The ignorance doesn't go away kids.

Well. It isn't really relevant for him since (it sounds like) he'll be attending a US M.D. school. He doesn't need that information to match - nor does it even help him match. And the match is almost 4 years down the road anyway. He could've gone the rest of his life without that information and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

 

[mehc012]

Well. It isn't really relevant for him since (it sounds like) he'll be attending a US M.D. school. He doesn't need that information to match - nor does it even help him match. And the match is almost 4 years down the road anyway. He could've gone the rest of his life without that information and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Understanding how the match work won't help him in 4yrs when he is putting his list together?

 

[La Presse]

Huh?

Sorry. Was just rambling.

 

[thesauce]

Understanding how the match work won't help him in 4yrs when he is putting his list together?

Not a bit. You rank your priority regardless. Your "competition" only affects how the programs rank you, but you can't do anything with that information. The majority of match applicants never really understand how the match works - and it really wouldn't make any difference if they did.

 

[nellbot2000]

Well. It isn't really relevant for him since (it sounds like) he'll be attending a US M.D. school. He doesn't need that information to match - nor does it even help him match. And the match is almost 4 years down the road anyway. He could've gone the rest of his life without that information and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

You're right, it doesn't make any difference to him at this point.

However, it does matter because he has been misinforming students who are considering a career in medicine by telling them that US-DO is not as good as Caribbean-MD. A college student might remember that time a medical student told them that matching back in the US isn't difficult when you go to a Caribbean medical school. Then they could subsequently only apply to US-MD/Caribbean-MD and not apply to any US-DO because they think it is the worst option.

 

[slopes23]

I was at an early breakfast the other day when a conversation was started about the physician shortage and NP's role in broadening healthcare. A girl piped up and mentioned that most aspiring physicians do not want to do primary care and would rather be specialists to pay off loans. Here's the kicker. She then proceeded to say how generalist physicians have a broader scope of medical knowledge than specialists.

She's waaayyy off.

You sure about that? Lol. Think about it.Specialists, specialize. As in they become experts in one particular thing. Generalists are a jack of all trades, master of none i.e. broader scope of medical knowledge. There is a difference between broader scope vs. more complex scope vs. more specific scope of knowledge.

 

[Goro]

A heme/onc colleague of mine once told me that "Medicine is knowing more and more about less and less"

You sure about that? Lol. Think about it.Specialists, specialize. As in they become experts in one particular thing. Generalists are a jack of all trades, master of none i.e. broader scope of medical knowledge. There is a difference between broader scope vs. more complex scope vs. more specific scope of knowledge.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Dohnut]

How do you delete a post?

 

[slopes23]

How do you delete a post?

By donating $$ (no joke)

 

[La Presse]

You sure about that? Lol. Think about it.Specialists, specialize. As in they become experts in one particular thing. Generalists are a jack of all trades, master of none i.e. broader scope of medical knowledge. There is a difference between broader scope vs. more complex scope vs. more specific scope of knowledge.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah ok, but you can't say that categorically, which was why I even posted the statement in the first place. People have been under the belief that primary care physicians have been the best when it comes to preventive care and addressing issues that they would otherwise be referred to specialists about. I definitely think there is some truth to that. In regards to the girl's comment about pcps having a broader scope of knowledge, I don't dispute that. But I would qualify her contention a little bit, especially since it was an absolute statement.

First off, I believe that medical knowledge is a metric that needs to be measured in its effectiveness, and in this case, that unit is patient outcomes. Studies done at Dartmouth have shown that patient outcomes are no better when seeing a specialist, despite specialists taking on an aggressive role in treating the patient. However, pcps do not fare better either, according to some of the studies. Moreover, despite a pcp having such a broad range of knowledge, I think care needs to be coordinated with the hospital and other midlevel practitioners, etc to yield positive outcomes. I definitely agree with you, but I think she also said something like, "People should see more generalists." That doesn't necessary give better care based on knowledge alone.

I honestly hope that makes sense.

 

[slopes23]

Yeah ok, but you can't say that categorically, which was why I even posted the statement in the first place. People have been under the belief that primary care physicians have been the best when it comes to preventive care and addressing issues that they would otherwise be referred to specialists about. I definitely think there is some truth to that. In regards to the girl's comment about pcps having a broader scope of knowledge, I don't dispute that. But I would qualify her contention a little bit, especially since it was an absolute statement.

First off, I believe that medical knowledge is a metric that needs to be measured in its effectiveness, and in this case, that unit is patient outcomes. Studies done at Dartmouth have shown that patient outcomes are no better when seeing a specialist, despite specialists taking on an aggressive role in treating the patient. However, pcps do not fare better either, according to some of the studies. Moreover, despite a pcp having such a broad range of knowledge, I think care needs to be coordinated with the hospital and other midlevel practitioners, etc to yield positive outcomes. I definitely agree with you, but I think she also said something like, "People should see more generalists." That doesn't necessary give better care based on knowledge alone.

I honestly hope that makes sense.

Just to clarify. Your post (and the reason why I responded to it) took point in the fact that she said PCP's have a broader scope of practice/knowledge than do specialists, and you felt this was not true.

Scope of practice is completely independent of patient outcomes. Just because PCP's and specialist have the same or say even different patient outcomes does not change their scope of knowledge or practice. If a patient is seeing a specialist, it is because that patients chief complaint falls into their specialized scope of of practice and knowledge.

Her point is still backed up in that while she could be seeing a pcp and a specialist (PM&R) who are following the same problem, and coordinating care say for pain management. If she has another issue like seizures she would be followed by a neurologist in conjunction with her pcp. A patient may have multiple specialists who follow them, but only one pcp because that pcp has a broader scope of practice.

 

[thesauce]

You're right, it doesn't make any difference to him at this point.

However, it does matter because he has been misinforming students who are considering a career in medicine by telling them that US-DO is not as good as Caribbean-MD. A college student might remember that time a medical student told them that matching back in the US isn't difficult when you go to a Caribbean medical school. Then they could subsequently only apply to US-MD/Caribbean-MD and not apply to any US-DO because they think it is the worst option.

Of course giving misinformation is unfortunate and he shouldn't be overstepping his boundary of knowledge. However that could be said of any situation. Your post implies that he needs to know how the match works a week before school starts. Not only is it several years off but it isn't crucial knowledge anyway.

 

[Lord Osis]

A heme/onc colleague of mine once told me that "Medicine is knowing more and more about less and less"

Reminds me of this famous plot:

 

[mehc012]

Not a bit. You rank your priority regardless. Your "competition" only affects how the programs rank you, but you can't do anything with that information. The majority of match applicants never really understand how the match works - and it really wouldn't make any difference if they did.

Right, but someone with a misguided idea of the match might not do a straight priority ranking; it's easy to overthink something like that.
I mean, you say "it doesn't matter if you understand, because you just behave like this" without acknowledging that you may not, in fact, behave thus if you don't understand

And if the majority of match applicants don't bother to do the research to figure out how the match works, then med students either aren't as smart or as driven as we're all led to believe. How could you NOT look up something like that?

 

[deleted407021]

Right, but someone with a misguided idea of the match might not do a straight priority ranking; it's easy to overthink something like that.
I mean, you say "it doesn't matter if you understand, because you just behave like this" without acknowledging that you may not, in fact, behave thus if you don't understand

And if the majority of match applicants don't bother to do the research to figure out how the match works, then med students either aren't as smart or as driven as we're all led to believe. How could you NOT look up something like that?

I agree with you. For someone to not be labelled as "apathetic" or perhaps "willfully ignorant" in this situation where the information is, in fact, not necessary, would require the willfully ignorant person to understand the lack of necessity before hand, and in so knowing elect not to look into the residency match system. However, since they have no knowledge of the workings of the system now, it is clear they do not understand that the system works fine without their understanding of it, and therefore they might be called willfully ignorant, which is kind of lame.

Perhaps they don't need to know these things, but, for myself at least, I would be looking trying to learn as much as I could about the system I would soon be in, up to my neck.

 

[mehc012]

I agree with you. For someone to not be labelled as "apathetic" or perhaps "willfully ignorant" in this situation where the information is, in fact, not necessary, would require the willfully ignorant person to understand the lack of necessity before hand, and in so knowing elect not to look into the residency match system. However, since they have no knowledge of the workings of the system now, it is clear they do not understand that the system works fine without their understanding of it, and therefore they might be called willfully ignorant, which is kind of lame.

Perhaps they don't need to know these things, but, for myself at least, I would be looking trying to learn as much as I could about the system I would soon be in, up to my neck.

Right. So, fine...they didn't need to know before they got to that stage themselves. But to say that there is no reason for people to look into it before they do it? That's crazy talk. Maybe the end result is the same, but that doesn't mean that it is a smart decision for people to make...it's a lucky one.

 

[thesauce]

Right, but someone with a misguided idea of the match might not do a straight priority ranking; it's easy to overthink something like that.
I mean, you say "it doesn't matter if you understand, because you just behave like this" without acknowledging that you may not, in fact, behave thus if you don't understand

And if the majority of match applicants don't bother to do the research to figure out how the match works, then med students either aren't as smart or as driven as we're all led to believe. How could you NOT look up something like that?

You are massively over-thinking this. It's kind of like saying someone might not drive on the right side of the road if they don't understand the historical basis for driving on the right instead of the left. You don't have to know every detail in order to get where you need to go. And med students realize this quickly.

As for your last point: it's all relative. It's a "need to know" kind of issue. It's actually pretty intuitive to rank your priorities in order and there will be numerous discussions throughout medical school encouraging you to do exactly that. It would take some doing to convince most students to do otherwise.

 

[thesauce]

Right. So, fine...they didn't need to know before they got to that stage themselves. But to say that there is no reason for people to look into it before they do it? That's crazy talk. Maybe the end result is the same, but that doesn't mean that it is a smart decision for people to make...it's a lucky one.

Do you know everything there is about how questions are vetted and validated for the MCAT and how all of the scoring is performed? I doubt it. It doesn't really matter - you try and answer the question correctly anyhow.

 

[mehc012]

Do you know everything there is about how questions are vetted and validated for the MCAT and how all of the scoring is performed? I doubt it. It doesn't really matter - you try and answer the question correctly anyhow.

I know as much as the AAMC allows to be available, and I'm pretty well versed on the popular/sensible theories on the rest which they won't confirm. I do and did care a LOT about this going into the MCAT, and can't fathom taking a test like this one without informing yourself.
I don't even know if I will get into medical school yet, but I apparently know more about the match process than the hypothetical 'most people' you discuss.

You are massively over-thinking this. It's kind of like saying someone might not drive on the right side of the road if they don't understand the historical basis for driving on the right instead of the left. You don't have to know every detail in order to get where you need to go. And med students realize this quickly.

As for your last point: it's all relative. It's a "need to know" kind of issue. It's actually pretty intuitive to rank your priorities in order and there will be numerous discussions throughout medical school encouraging you to do exactly that. It would take some doing to convince most students to do otherwise.

That's a terrible example. I don't give a jack about the history, but if my future depends on an algorithm and a very detailed, structured system, I want to know the details.

Anyway, there's no point in discussing this further. You think I am naive for thinking people should bother to inform themselves about the events in their own lives, and I think you are foolish for thinking otherwise. End of story. And yes, my wording of it is probably biased. I honestly tried to make it less so, but couldn't think of any other way to describe your point.

 

[thesauce]

I know as much as the AAMC allows to be available, and I'm pretty well versed on the popular/sensible theories on the rest which they won't confirm. I do and did care a LOT about this going into the MCAT, and can't fathom taking a test like this one without informing yourself.

This is to your credit. So now I'd like to ask: Do you think everyone did that? (Hint: the answer is "no" and you have to look no farther than this thread to see that). And in the end, how did it change your approach? Did you intentionally not answer questions correctly based on what you learned about the process? Do you believe that people who didn't read up on it like you did would answer questions incorrectly on purpose? So, what did you gain from learning all about that process?

I don't even know if I will get into medical school yet, but I apparently know more about the match process than the hypothetical 'most people' you discuss.

At least in your head you do. And "hypothetical" isn't the right word here. Students learn enough to get by.

...but if my future depends on an algorithm and a very detailed, structured system, I want to know the details.

I shared that sentiment, but in the end, it really didn't help.

Anyway, there's no point in discussing this further. You think I am naive for thinking people should bother to inform themselves about the events in their own lives, and I think you are foolish for thinking otherwise. End of story. And yes, my wording of it is probably biased. I honestly tried to make it less so, but couldn't think of any other way to describe your point.

I'm sorry if this discussion didn't go the way you hoped, but you should really consider working on your communication style. You've invented your own debate and assigned me a side. I don't think you're naive at all - of course people should inform themselves about important events in their lives. But that's never been the discussion here. This isn't about what people should do - it's about what they are doing. What they should do is a discussion for another time.

 

[ems2doc]

"I'm going to major in neurosurgery in medical school."
"I'm going to become a nurse and eventually be promoted to doctor." - No joke... When I was a senior in high school some girl had this brilliant idea.
"DOs can't do surgery"
"I thought about medical school, but I decided on regular college instead"

Then there's the classic.... "What's your major?" "Premed"

 

[allantois]

"I'm going to become a nurse and eventually be promoted to doctor." - No joke... When I was a senior in high school some girl had this brilliant idea.

Just watch her dream come true