my age as barrier to med school and options

[getmoving]

Hi to all,
I am hoping someone might be willing to share thoughts/feedback.

Briefly. I began medical school 30 years ago, and at the time was not prepared (emotionally) to handle the experience. I chose to leave after my first year. I had no regrets and was fine with my decision. After a career in both teaching and community health, I have toyed with the idea over the last couple of years of medical school again. Odd as it sounds, at age 54, I now feel emotionally ready to handle medical school. It is almost surely too late, but I'm throwing it out there for people's feedback.

I had already contacted Ross University and they said that all the pre-med pre-requisites I took would not be acceptable as they were done too long ago. I am not prepared at this point to start all over with 2 years of pre reqs again. I probably know the answer to my question....but is there a chance? If not, any suggestion for a viable/practical alternative. I know I want a career change into some type of medically related health practitioner work.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply. It's much appreciated. And good luck to everyone on this forum
sincerely,
Lorne

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xffan624]

Hi to all,
I am hoping someone might be willing to share thoughts/feedback.

Briefly. I began medical school 30 years ago, and at the time was not prepared (emotionally) to handle the experience. I chose to leave after my first year. I had no regrets and was fine with my decision. After a career in both teaching and community health, I have toyed with the idea over the last couple of years of medical school again. Odd as it sounds, at age 54, I now feel emotionally ready to handle medical school. It is almost surely too late, but I'm throwing it out there for people's feedback.

I had already contacted Ross University and they said that all the pre-med pre-requisites I took would not be acceptable as they were done too long ago. I am not prepared at this point to start all over with 2 years of pre reqs again. I probably know the answer to my question....but is there a chance? If not, any suggestion for a viable/practical alternative. I know I want a career change into some type of medically related health practitioner work.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply. It's much appreciated. And good luck to everyone on this forum
sincerely,
Lorne

Whatever you do, don't even consider the Caribbean as an option. You don't want to be saddled with 300K in debt and no residency prospects at your age. Honestly I think the ship has sailed for medical school, especially as you would be starting around 57 (at best) and graduating at 61. Then your residency finished around retirement age. Maybe look in a PA program or other mid-level option?

 

[jl lin]

Hi to all,
I am hoping someone might be willing to share thoughts/feedback.

Briefly. I began medical school 30 years ago, and at the time was not prepared (emotionally) to handle the experience. I chose to leave after my first year. I had no regrets and was fine with my decision. After a career in both teaching and community health, I have toyed with the idea over the last couple of years of medical school again. Odd as it sounds, at age 54, I now feel emotionally ready to handle medical school. It is almost surely too late, but I'm throwing it out there for people's feedback.

I had already contacted Ross University and they said that all the pre-med pre-requisites I took would not be acceptable as they were done too long ago. I am not prepared at this point to start all over with 2 years of pre reqs again. I probably know the answer to my question....but is there a chance? If not, any suggestion for a viable/practical alternative. I know I want a career change into some type of medically related health practitioner work.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply. It's much appreciated. And good luck to everyone on this forum
sincerely,
Lorne

Age isn't the issue. Do what you can to get into a good DO school....maybe some MD programs...depending upon your stats. Some kind of post bacc perhaps. Stranger things have happened.

 

[katiemaude]

Far be it from me to discourage anyone's dream. If you are independenly wealthy and can pay for medical school out of pocket, do what you want. Shoot for the stars. If you have to borrow, it's going to make it hard to justify financially with the limited number of years you are likely to practice.

I vote for trying for a master's and becoming a PA.

 

[Jewels86]

My opinion is this...only you can decide what's best for you.

If at this point in your life, if it's only for closure, you've "grown up" (50's may be the new 30's ), whatever the reason, if it's heavy on your heart, then just do it. I've worked with ER docs that, after graduating residency, absolutely hated their lives. Why...perhaps they chose the wrong residency, whatever the case may be, the demand from the powers that be to "see more patients!!", patient's with 10/10 pain eating chips, wanting blankets, cell phone chargers, pillows, talk on the phone while being assessed, who knows.

If you want to get into FM in rural America, why not. You may be alive for 30+ years and may help many, many people. If you want to be a surgeon, I'd lean more towards no. ER...think about it because it's a tough, tough life.

 

[Mars41]

My only concern would be your comment, "I'm not prepared to do two years of prereqs." If that is what is going to hold you back then I don't think you are ready.

If you are willing to commit wholeheartedly then I think you will be fine.

I like what @Jewels86 said about how many people you could help over the rest of your life... This is very true.

If you truly want it, I say take a year and do your prereqs. Rock the MCAT, go to med school, and follow your dreams my friend.

Good luck on your journey and remember it is never "too late."

 

[el_duderino]

How much debt would you end up in at the end of residency, when you'll be 62 years old? How will you pay that back, let alone retire?

 

[jl lin]

Far be it from me to discourage anyone's dream. If you are independenly wealthy and can pay for medical school out of pocket, do what you want. Shoot for the stars. If you have to borrow, it's going to make it hard to justify financially with the limited number of years you are likely to practice.

I vote for trying for a master's and becoming a PA.

Hmm, limited number of years? IDK, like 20 or even possibly 25, depending upon the area of specialization the person goes into???

Do you know how many primary care physicians I know that are practicing well past 70-75?
It totally depends upon the person. Biological age is not the same as chronological age. First hand practice in healthcare has demonstrated this to me over and over again.

 

[QofQuimica]

Financially, what you're proposing does not make sense because you just don't have enough time to work in medicine to earn back the cost of what a decade of training will run you. I'm guessing you're already aware of this, and maybe you already have your retirement comfortably funded with plenty of money to spare. In that case, it's your wad of cash to blow, and you could do a lot worse with it than blowing it on a medical degree that will never pay for itself. But on the odd chance that you don't yet have a retirement plan in place, I feel obligated to point out that going to med school in your late 50s/residency in your early 60s is an incredibly stupid, ruinous idea from a financial standpoint. Due diligence done.

To answer your question regarding "is there a chance?", the answer is sure. But you have to understand and accept that you're subject to the same evaluation process as everyone else. If you decide to be a premed, then the premed hoops everyone else has to jump through are your hoops, too. That includes taking all the prereqs in a period of time reasonably contiguous to your date of matriculation. If you are not willing to do what is necessary to get into (and through) med school, then be honest with yourself about that and stop now. Because you don't get to take any short cuts for your age. You don't get any bonus points for your age either, and in fact, your age will be a disadvantage to you because some adcoms aren't going to want to accept someone in their late 50s. Oh, they won't come out and say that to you. That would be discriminatory. But the app process is subjective, and there are plenty of other reasons they can give to explain why they rejected you. So you need to have an app with stats that are as good as everyone else's (and ideally even better than the average). You also need to have a very compelling story for why you should be the token person of near-retirement age in your med school class.

Ultimately then, I have to answer your question with some more questions: what's your UG GPA like, why medicine, and why now?

 

[Jewels86]

The above posting is 100% factual. They will never, ever tell you outright that you're too old; they'll say things like, "We really like you but...your biology is a tad bit old" even though you took it two terms ago. Or, "Your MCAT is a little off" and it's a 38...

Does it suck, yes. But...if this is what you need for closure, then do it. Or you'll be 90 applying

 

[Law2Doc]

Its not absolutely impossible, and I try not to tell people it's too late, BUT... If you start med school at 57, you graduate at 61. You will be an intern at 61-62. Are you the type of physical specimen in your early 60s that can be running up or down flights of stairs to get to a code? It's not just a mental job, it can be physically exhausting too. You will graduate a shorter residency at 64 and seeking your first post-training job at 64-65. I think your ability to get hired by an employer will be quite limited and you'd almost certainly have to open up your own shop. Which many aren't that comfortable doing as ones first job. So really think this through because the path a 25 year old takes and the one you can have will be very different, even if there's a school out there that would give you a chance, and frankly, a 61 year old applying from a Caribbean school isn't going to get many interviews, so if you can at least get schooled stateside you'd increase your odds. As mentioned above, programs can't overtly discriminate against you for age, so you'd give them a big out if they can Also discriminate against you as a Caribbean grad.

 

[jl lin]

The above posting is 100% factual. They will never, ever tell you outright that you're too old; they'll say things like, "We really like you but...your biology is a tad bit old" even though you took it two terms ago. Or, "Your MCAT is a little off" and it's a 38...

Such statements scream of discrimination. Why would the right bio courses be too old if only taken two terms before? Why would an MCAT score of 38 be "a little off," when the Average MCAT Scores for admission at many of the best Medical Schools is between 30-37/38?

Discrimination may occur, but your example makes an easy case against the med schools. If they would want to avoid a discrimination challenge, they had better find better reasons than those.

Like all questions concerning entrance to medical school, the OP's question is an individual one--depending on the individual and whole application of the one applying.

Any hint of chronological discrimination must be thrown aside, just as it should be for issues of gender, race, sexual orientation, and the like. It doesn't matter if you think schools will deliver a hidden discriminatory determination. I mean people could decide that they don't like the shape of your head or ears or nose or the way you walk or smile. Sure, theses aren't set forth as clearly as what we see w/ EEOC issues; nonetheless, individual, subjective biases may occur. How is it beneficial to you to overly concern yourself w/ them?

Put your best application out there, and hope for the best. Know what happens if you don't try? Nothing.

At the end of the day, there are many ways to serve our fellow humans or the world. But if you really want this, it's about lining all your ducks, dotting your "i's" and crossing your "t's," and putting your hand to the plow and not looking back. Like love, it's better to have tried and lost, than to never have tried at all--if this is something you are really committed to doing.

Don't worry about the EEOC potential issues unless and until they present themselves to you. Just focus on your overall application and what you have to do to make it your best.

I also agree about the Caribbean schools. I know some good docs that went that route 15 years or more ago, and it worked out for them going to SGU. Much, however, has changed since then. Why make it harder and riskier than it already is?

 

[jl lin]

Financially, what you're proposing does not make sense because you just don't have enough time to work in medicine to earn back the cost of what a decade of training will run you. I'm guessing you're already aware of this, and maybe you already have your retirement comfortably funded with plenty of money to spare. In that case, it's your wad of cash to blow, and you could do a lot worse with it than blowing it on a medical degree that will never pay for itself. But on the odd chance that you don't yet have a retirement plan in place, I feel obligated to point out that going to med school in your late 50s/residency in your early 60s is an incredibly stupid, ruinous idea from a financial standpoint. Due diligence done.

To answer your question regarding "is there a chance?", the answer is sure. But you have to understand and accept that you're subject to the same evaluation process as everyone else. If you decide to be a premed, then the premed hoops everyone else has to jump through are your hoops, too. That includes taking all the prereqs in a period of time reasonably contiguous to your date of matriculation. If you are not willing to do what is necessary to get into (and through) med school, then be honest with yourself about that and stop now. Because you don't get to take any short cuts for your age. You don't get any bonus points for your age either, and in fact, your age will be a disadvantage to you because some adcoms aren't going to want to accept someone in their late 50s. Oh, they won't come out and say that to you. That would be discriminatory. But the app process is subjective, and there are plenty of other reasons they can give to explain why they rejected you. So you need to have an app with stats that are as good as everyone else's (and ideally even better than the average). You also need to have a very compelling story for why you should be the token person of near-retirement age in your med school class.

Ultimately then, I have to answer your question with some more questions: what's your UG GPA like, why medicine, and why now?

Just to make another point. . .mostly to your first point on financial sensibility. . . (The second part to your response--I totally agree.). . . Yes. Even if a person were to go into primary care at this point, and they had say a good $250,000 in student loans and lost, I don't know, maybe ~80,000 per year (est. average) for what they might make but lost over the years of medical training; it is still possible to work 15 years or so and more than make up for the loss--even in primary care. I mean they would have made, hypothetically speaking, a least 40% less. Yes, you have to take out the cost of education, with interest, but that is done over time--say ~ 10 years.

Many people aren't retiring in their 60's or early 70's. And why should they if they are healthy and able--especially for something like primary care? Now if you are talking surgery, well, I think that would be super challenging; and it's already very tough for people in their late 20's and 30's. There may be a few exceptions. For me, going for surgery wouldn't make it worth it--just having seen what those poor souls go through. A program requiring a long residency and added fellowship/s--these are situations where probability is not on the older student's side for financial and other reasons.

ED is awesome, but for someone like me; well I have done too many years of off-shift as a RN. Even if you can swing with off-shifts, as I usually can and do; it's not something you want to do well into your 60's and 70's. Again, there are some exceptions--but I feel primary care may be the soundest choice for a later-start-non-trad.

Financially, there are also other factors, such as if a person has decent spouse support/income, etc. At the same time, you have to take into consideration the couple's need to help their children, if they have any, with educational costs, wedddings, etc. That stuff can really add up big time.

NO easy answers. It's a totally individual thing; but some things make more sense than others to me. Neurosurgery or CT surg? No. That would make no sense from my POV.

 

[Shjanzey]

I have met some pretty amazing people in their 60s and 70s who decided to get an education. One thing I noticed about all of them is that at that point of time in their life it wasn't about financial stability or making money. It was purely to pursue something they loved. I think that what you are attempting is laudable, but many have pointed out that you will face barriers. If this is what you want to do, be persistent find the dream. I don't think Ross University is the route to go. Go to a quality institution that will provide an accredited education.

Good luck

 

[gyngyn]

Most of the monetary expense of educating physicians is borne by the public, even at private schools. There is no right to a medical education. If society is more likely to benefit from your matriculation than it would from another candidate, no school will fail to admit you.

The "bucket list" candidate, on the other hand, will have a distinctly uphill challenge without regard to their chronological age.

 

[Shjanzey]

Most of the monetary expense of educating physicians is borne by the public, even at private schools. There is no right to a medical education. If society is more likely to benefit from your matriculation than it would from another candidate, no school will fail to admit you.

The "bucket list" candidate, on the other hand who is applying to a service profession will have a distinctly uphill challenge without regard to their chronological age.

Are you saying that after a certain age it is cost prohibitive to train a doctor, therefore it should not be entertained? What age would that be? Should this only be for physicians, or nursing too? What about incoming physicians who have to get ECFMG certified and then re-do residency. I know several that did this after turning 50+ years old.

How would this be feasible in light of age discrimination law. Interesting conundrum you have posed.

 

[gyngyn]

Are you saying that after a certain age it is cost prohibitive to train a doctor, therefore it should not be entertained? What age would that be? Should this only be for physicians, or nursing too? What about incoming physicians who have to get ECFMG certified and then re-do residency. I know several that did this after turning 50+ years old.

How would this be feasible in light of age discrimination law. Interesting conundrum you have posed.

I am saying that our constituency (the public) expects a product commensurate with the funding they have provided. The relative value of this career change to the OP is not going to be a factor in the screening process.

 

[Shjanzey]

I am saying that our constituency (the public) expects a product commensurate with the funding they have provided. The relative value of this career change to the OP is not going to be a factor in the screening process.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[jl lin]

And I still contend it will depend on the individual REGARDLESS OF AGE. By the reasoning of the public and their monetary bang for the buck, what would you do with the many physicians, quite young mind you, that leave medicine, without fulfilling their "public obligation," or those that go into an area that does not involve actual patient care, research, or education?

Also, should med schools start genetic testing on individuals, to see how likely they may be to drop out of medicine "too early" due to a genetic propensity to a particular illness? Should they dismiss candidates that engage in dangerous past-time experiences, like skydiving? I mean this line of reasoning could go on and on and be just as valid for candidates of all ages.

Ours is a society that does not respect those middle-age or older as individuals of value many times. That's precisely why chronological age must be excluded from the equation.. It's natural to favor the chronologically younger and more "pliable. It's naturalistically built into us. It's not necessarily in a society's best interest to do so.. Will a younger med student work longer? Perhaps. Perhaps not..

 

[Goro]

I've answered this to OP in another forum, but it's worth repeating. To me, OP's age is less a factor (my all time oldest student was 53) but that fact that he already had his chance at age 26, when he took a seat from someone else and then bailed on med school.

I have a very cynical colleague who would ask: "what does this guy want to do when he grows up"?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

And I still contend it will depend on the individual REGARDLESS OF AGE. By the reasoning of the public and their monetary bang for the buck, what would you do with the many physicians, quite young mind you, that leave medicine, without fulfilling their "public obligation," or those that go into an area that does not involve actual patient care, research, or education?

Also, should med schools start genetic testing on individuals, to see how likely they may be to drop out of medicine "too early" due to a genetic propensity to a particular illness? Should they dismiss candidates that engage in dangerous past-time experiences, like skydiving? I mean this line of reasoning could go on and on and be just as valid for candidates of all ages.

Ours is a society that does not respect those middle-age or older as individuals of value many times. That's precisely why chronological age must be excluded from the equation.. It's natural to favor the chronologically younger and more "pliable. It's naturalistically built into us. It's not necessarily in a society's best interest to do so.. Will a younger med student work longer? Perhaps. Perhaps not..

The good old slippery slope. The problem with your argument is that being 54 is not like having a genetic marker that may or may not turn into cancer. It is not like guessing someone will quit medicine 5 years out of residency at 35. At 54, we know that return on investment is not there. I don't like age discrimination, but if necessary in some scenarios, it should be done. We already do it for other adults like those that wish to consume alcohol or marijuana (in states where it's legal).

 

[jl lin]

is

The good old slippery slope. The problem with your argument is that being 54 is not like having a genetic marker that may or may not turn into cancer. It is not like guessing someone will quit medicine 5 years out of residency at 35. At 54, we know that return on investment is not there. I don't like age discrimination, but if necessary in some scenarios, it should be done. We already do it for other adults like those that wish to consume alcohol or marijuana (in states where it's legal).

Wholeheartedly disagree. The financial return can definitely be there. It depends on the specifics, and therefore, it is an individual issue. Just as the whole application for a MS applicant SHOULD be.

Plus, Age is definitely an EEOC issue. We could easily find stats that support the relative numbers of those that do NOT return the investment to medicine, from a public perspective.

I have recovered a number of 70+ folks post Open Heart that did great--straight out the OR, through cardiac rehab, and onward. I have also recovered a number of 40 years old that have not recovered well in the immediate post-op or in cardiac rehab and thereafter.

Actually having a genetic marker may well be as risky if not more so than mere age.

Adcom members have a duty to look at the whole person and the whole application, period. End of story. Anything else is imbalanced thinking and complete age-bias. If an Adcom member can't do this, they should NOT be sitting on the committee. Nonetheless, in the end, for each individual, the process will be what it will be.

If a person has the motivation and the reasonable ability to make a strong application, that is what they should do, and screw the rest of the junk.

By this kind of reasoning, businesses are just dandy with using age discrimination on an applicant with a stellar resume, etc. The logic isn't there. Anything else is false logic shrouded and encumbered by hidden bias and discrimination--as it would be for race or any other EECO status.

Personally, I don't give too much of a fig if particular adcom members are biased against age. The world is bigger than such small-minded thinking. Again, a person should do their best to make their best application, and go from there.

These kinds of threads are part of the problem with putting too much emphasis on online sites, even, SDN. People act like online advice is the end all and be all.

The simple truth for anyone applying to MS, once more, is that they must do their best to put forth their best application. There are only so many seats. That's the way it goes.

Furthermore, plenty of "younger" people at this site, and in general, over the years, have gotten into MS, and ended up hating not only med school, but medicine in general.

All of healthcare is troubling right about now. We have to open our eyes and face that reality. There is good and bad to everything, and that is how life works.

BTW, if an adcom is going to limit acceptance based on whether a person uses alcohol, well, heck, there are a lot of folks that should not be in med school or that should not be physicians. LOL

"If necessary in some scenarios, it should not be done" What does that mean, specifically regarding age? That's a statement that would and could apply to any individual applicant of any age. No offense AH, but I just don't think you are seeing this.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I can't imagine how anyone could ever realistically think a 56 year old applicant can have as productive of a career as a 26 year old applicant. If adcoms are supposed to pick the applicant they thing will provide the most care over their lifetimes, then I'd expect them to always go with the applicant who is 30 years younger.

 

[jl lin]

LOLLOL. . .And of course people over 50 can't have or begin a successful career!!!! Didn't you know, they are just supposed to sit at their desks twiddling their thumbs until 65 or so?!!! Ridiculous.
As the court is to be blind to things such as age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, so too those on the adcom should look at the whole application. All things being equal,, then go with passion and work history. After all, the younger person has time on his/her side with reapplication or even the amount of venues to which they can apply.
There are pluses and minuses to various phases of life.

Look at the whole person/application--that is what adcom members are to do. Anything else is MERE bias and nothing more.
You do know that there are people that are over 40, and you would not necessarily know how far off from that number they are--and they may not have even had an ounce of plastic surgery? So that means that you have to hone in on a birthdate and a number--regardless of how worthwhile the rest of the applicant's story and stats are.
It's almost like trying to calculate the % of a particular mix of races may be in person after looking at an otherwise interesting and worthwhile application/applicant.

The smartest thing for any committee to do is to be blind to the factors that don't matter or are illegal, and then look at the whole person and application. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.




As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.
Andrew Carnegie

 

[StBernardsRule]

LOLLOL. . .And of course people over 50 can't have or begin a successful career!!!! Didn't you know, they are just supposed to sit at their desks twiddling their thumbs until 65 or so?!!! Ridiculous.

What's the point in doing this? This would be like me saying "LOLLLL!!!!! Yeah, age shouldn't matter at all.... let's take someone that's 92 years old and ignore human biology and the fact that we're likely wasting a seat!!! LOL! Let's forget common sense in favor of being politically correct!"

Did you really think posting like this is going to sway my opinion or anyone elses? It just does the opposite.

As the court is to be blind to things such as age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, so too those on the adcom should look at the whole application. All things being equal,, then go with passion and work history. After all, the younger person has time on his/her side with reapplication or even the amount of venues to which they can apply.

There are lots of things that are illegal that people do all the time and you can't call them out on it. Discriminating based on age is very common. For example, telling someone to go to law school at 40 without taking age discrimination into account would be very irresponsible, as they'll likely rack up a silly amount of debt and face age discrimination regardless of whether or not it's illegal.

It'd be easy for an adcom member to justify discriminating based on age (as Goro already mentioned) because it's unlikely to be the best use of the schools resources, regardless of what the law says.

Look at the whole person/application--that is what adcom members are to do. Anything else is MERE bias and nothing more.
You do know that there are people that are over 40, and you would not necessarily know how far off from that number they are--and they may not have even had an ounce of plastic surgery? So that means that you have to hone in on a birthdate and a number--regardless of how worthwhile the rest of the applicant's story and stats are.
It's almost like trying to calculate the % of a particular mix of races may be in person after looking at an otherwise interesting and worthwhile application/applicant.

The smartest thing for any committee to do is to be blind to the factors that don't matter or are illegal, and then look at the whole person and application. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

I would argue that the smartest thing adcom members should do is to pick the applicants that will help the most people. That's almost certainly someone that's 30 years younger than someone else.

If that's illegal, then while I'd disagree with the law I would obey it. But again I still wouldn't give a 40 year old pre-law false hope and tell them they won't be discriminated based on their age just because it's illegal. From the sound of it, it happens in medicine too, and OP should be aware of this and make an informed decision.

 

[Law2Doc]

I can't imagine how anyone could ever realistically think a 56 year old applicant can have as productive of a career as a 26 year old applicant. If adcoms are supposed to pick the applicant they thing will provide the most care over their lifetimes, then I'd expect them to always go with the applicant who is 30 years younger.

If you look at the people who drop out of med school, it's typically exclusively younger people, who didn't really know what to expect or were poorly thought out about their own career goals, family situation etc. Most of the time if a school takes an older applicant they have thought things through, they have their family/support systems squared away, and will actually see things through to become a practicing doctor. Also there are subsets of older applicants who are extremely healthy and of traditional applicants who are obese smokers. So you don't really want to use age as a metric for long life or career in a vacuum. There is no 'always" here.

That being said, given that medical school seats are a much more finite resource, I think a lot if adcoms would have to at least consider whether this person would have any time for a career after school. It's not like law school where you can get the degree and never practice and society doesn't really lose anything.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've answered this to OP in another forum, but it's worth repeating. To me, OP's age is less a factor (my all time oldest student was 53) but that fact that he already had his chance at age 26, when he took a seat from someone else and then bailed on med school.

I have a very cynical colleague who would ask: "what does this guy want to do when he grows up"?

I think that's the big issue here. They won't overtly discriminate because of age because they can't. But they certainly can discriminate against people who previously dropped out of programs, or are Caribbean grads. And thereby accomplish the same result. That being said, some program somewhere may want the good publicity of having a senior citizen grad.

 

[jl lin]

St Bernard, my point is essentially to look at the whole application and the whole person behind it. If that is done, then due diligence is done. I doubt anyone that is 92 would strive to make a strong application for medical school--even if they were in relatively good shape.
Do you know many applicants of this age applying to medical school? BTW, I have friends over 40--nurse friends mind you--who have successfully completely law or medical school, and they are productive and are happily working.

The key to making a decision is to strive to keep in mind, all other factors being equal (stats, motivation, work hx, PS, experience in healthcare, shadowing, ...etc) the person that may be the better fit for medicine. To estimate the number of people one may be able to help is iffy at best. Of at 92 it is not so iffy.
Between the ages of say 40 and 60, it is rather iffy.

I loved my FP doc. He worked until he was 84--in good shape--was there through the whole week and certain Saturdays. His partner in practice is approaching 60, and he's amazing--still thorough--still pleasant and not miserable and down on medicine--even though this particular environment with insurance and oversight has been and is getting more and more ridiculous. He still loves what he does! Is he walking into each office room clicking his heals? No. But he listens, he knows his stuff, he is as pleasant as all hell, and he just has a great attitude about life and medicine.

He has no intentions of retiring in the next 10 -15 years or so. I just love that guy. And no offense or getting off topic, but he was just meant to be a doctor--he's a DO. His other is a MD who was schooled in another country. Besides all of that, I switched to the DO for my family members' sake and for my own sake. The MD was younger, condescending--smiling as he would in his condescension. He missed some really important markers on a family member's labs--not once but several times. Just wouldn't listen well to his patients, and in general, he is just not up to par with the smarts, insights, and abilities of his DO partner. His DO partner, BTW, was a non-trad--not as old as the OP here, but a non-trad nonetheless.

What is my point already? It's all such an individual thing. Just as DO "vs" MD should not matter, age should not matter. Some people have the real gift, dedication, motivation, intelligence, and yes, even a necessary intuitiveness for it, while others just don't--nor will they--regardless of age, color, whatever.

A fair amount of people that are younger are going to find medicine to be a burden to them, rather than a joy--overall, that is. They just haven't been up close and personal enough with exposure to it. Their ideals will NOT match up with the reality. But they will have invested so much time and money, they will drudge through it---and in the process they will be subpar as physicians.

I mean, really, there is no getting around dealing with all kinds of people, whilst having not only the intelligence and education to strive to medically meet their needs, but to be able to listen and tolerate a lot of BS that can come from them, without judging them and while truly caring about what's in their best interest--and their own free-will. If you aren't into people, it's ridiculous to go into medicine--with the exception of say pathology or non-interventional radiology or something of that nature.

That's the real rub. People! Dealing with them under many kinds of conditions, backgrounds, stressful situations, cultural conflicts, you name it. So all things being equal in two applicants, I'd go with the one that genuinely cares about people and has effectively demonstrated this.

For the most part, if you miss this, especially for something like primary care, OBGYN, peds, etc, you haven't got what it takes to be a great healthcare provider. There's the point where quality of what you produce is as important or perhaps more so, than sheer potential numbers of patients a physician may or may not see.

As another side note, people catch on in primary or specialist care as to which docs really seem to give a darn and are insightful and careful and are good listeners, and which aren't. So, the better you are at the all those things, the more likely you will have a strong patient load.

It's about trying to evaluate the whole person and application. In general, those that aren't decent with people aren't going to do so well in the field--and though I give much to the adeptness of a surgeon--skill wise--in general, I would still include this trait. I would not necessarily trade it over their innate and developed skills in the OR and their ability to manage their patients well postoperatively--but it is still important to have the ability to care as a surgeon. We just have to understand how arduous their training is. It doesn't excuse them for not taking a caring approach; but they can be trained to be a little more distant--or they are just so darn tired and stressed all the time, it may be tough for them to be a littler warmer and fuzzier, as say a PCP. But when you work with them on a daily basis, you see who really gives a darn and who doesn't--and ultimately as a RN recovering their patients--you learn whose pts you'd rather recover, in general, and whose you'd prefer not to recover. Trust me on that. There are exceptions of course, based on the overall conditions, comorbidities of the patients, but in general, there are just some surgeons where you don't want to recover their patients. I won't go into the horror stories.

OTOH, there are surgeons that may or may not be a bit grumpy, but they are all about their work and you can tell. So as say an immediate CT recovery RN--getting them cold, right out of the OR, you are thrilled when you get the patients of surgeons that really give a damn about their work and what they are doing--even if they are having a bad day or week and may be short with you. Their overall work and management of the patients speaks for itself.

To me caring means many things; but it also means being CAREFUL, ATTENTIVE, ON THE BALL. If you really care, you will make it your business to know your business and to obtain well-developed skills.

Anyway, my whole thing is about looking at the whole package and doing your best to vet the individual applicant.

I am sorry if my "LOL" offended you. I wasn't trying to offend you. At the end of the day, ageism is ageism, just as racism is racism, and its about looking at the whole applicant.

BTW, I love St Bernards, but man can they drool!

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

is


Wholeheartedly disagree. The financial return can definitely be there. It depends on the specifics, and therefore, it is an individual issue. Just as the whole application for a MS applicant SHOULD be.

Plus, Age is definitely an EEOC issue. We could easily find stats that support the relative numbers of those that do NOT return the investment to medicine, from a public perspective.

Not disagreeing that it is an EEOC issue. You also can't deny that we give as a society all this deference to old people just because they are the ones voting. Their special interests are protected because of their lobbying and not because of logic.

I have recovered a number of 70+ folks post Open Heart that did great--straight out the OR, through cardiac rehab, and onward. I have also recovered a number of 40 years old that have not recovered well in the immediate post-op or in cardiac rehab and thereafter.

Actually having a genetic marker may well be as risky if not more so than mere age.

I acknowledge that there are cases like the one you mention, but the truth is that statistically a 40 year old is more likely to do well than a 70 year old if they are both in equal health.

Adcom members have a duty to look at the whole person and the whole application, period. End of story. Anything else is imbalanced thinking and complete age-bias. If an Adcom member can't do this, they should NOT be sitting on the committee. Nonetheless, in the end, for each individual, the process will be what it will be.

And I agree they should. Part of the "whole person" is their age, which should disqualify them the same way having other physical impairments.

By this kind of reasoning, businesses are just dandy with using age discrimination on an applicant with a stellar resume, etc. The logic isn't there. Anything else is false logic shrouded and encumbered by hidden bias and discrimination--as it would be for race or any other EECO status.

Difference is that businesses are private entities whereas the residency money is a common pool. We should give priority to those that can do best for society.

These kinds of threads are part of the problem with putting too much emphasis on online sites, even, SDN. People act like online advice is the end all and be all.

You are saying we are saying that. None of us have said that.

Furthermore, plenty of "younger" people at this site, and in general, over the years, have gotten into MS, and ended up hating not only med school, but medicine in general.

You're not making any point here unless you want to say old people don't ever hate medical school or medicine in general, which is ridiculous.

All of healthcare is troubling right about now. We have to open our eyes and face that reality. There is good and bad to everything, and that is how life works.

So your argument is that we should prioritize bad?

BTW, if an adcom is going to limit acceptance based on whether a person uses alcohol, well, heck, there are a lot of folks that should not be in med school or that should not be physicians. LOL

Completely missing the point of what I was saying. Go back and read what I was saying.

"If necessary in some scenarios, it should not be done" What does that mean, specifically regarding age? That's a statement that would and could apply to any individual applicant of any age. No offense AH, but I just don't think you are seeing this.

Doesn't need to apply to any individual of any age, but age "discrimination" happens all the time. There are age ranges for a lot of things. The same way we say that at 65 you're entitled to Medicare. We do the same with the government itself. The president has to be 35 years or older. Members of senate have to be 28.

 

[jl lin]

AH, chill already. All your parsing shows me you have missed my points, entirely. It seems like you are purposely being obtuse. Maybe I'm wrong. That's OK.
I'm not going back to each thread piece in order to give an exposition on each point that I have made or clarification of them. Let's just be cool and agree that we disagree.

Like I said, I am not getting my panties in a knot about what is debated on SDN or any other website. Let a person put their best application out there, and then let the chips fall where they may.
For heaven's sake, I have worked with some killer 70 year old nurses in busy ICUs and other areas.

Give me smarts, dedication, compassion, commitment, and integrity. So long as they can do the work, let them--especially if they are going into a much needed area, such as primary care.

One last thing. One day, you will be in the OP's age range. Let's see if you feel the same way, if you are healthy enough to keep up and be there for your patients. At that point, you may feel a little differently.

Also, to discriminate based on disability is a tricky. Disability is a protected status also. For med students it may be a bit tricky; but it really depends on the specifics--hence the individual and the details--as I have been saying over and over and over....

Also, an older applicant has PAID a lot more into the public tax pot than the younger ones. They have just as much right to getting post-grad education and, well, veritable slave wages for the residency duration (lol) as any other post medical graduate. If they want to bite that bullet and they can do so, who are you or anyone else to stop them?

 

[Law2Doc]

Not disagreeing that it is an EEOC issue. You also can't deny that we give as a society all this deference to old people just because they are the ones voting. Their special interests are protected because of their lobbying and not because of logic.


I acknowledge that there are cases like the one you mention, but the truth is that statistically a 40 year old is more likely to do well than a 70 year old if they are both in equal health.


And I agree they should. Part of the "whole person" is their age, which should disqualify them the same way having other physical impairments.


Difference is that businesses are private entities whereas the residency money is a common pool. We should give priority to those that can do best for society.


You are saying we are saying that. None of us have said that.


You're not making any point here unless you want to say old people don't ever hate medical school or medicine in general, which is ridiculous.


So your argument is that we should prioritize bad?


Completely missing the point of what I was saying. Go back and read what I was saying.


Doesn't need to apply to any individual of any age, but age "discrimination" happens all the time. There are age ranges for a lot of things. The same way we say that at 65 you're entitled to Medicare. We do the same with the government itself. The president has to be 35 years or older. Members of senate have to be 28.

As mentioned you can not legally discriminate based on age or based on many physical impairments. It's illegal for a reason. This was debated in the country ad nauseum and congressionally resolved and no reason to revisit it here with less informed minds. There are protected classes and adcoms are aware and dont overtly violate the law.

Additionally, we really don't ever give priority to those who will do more for society coming out of residency. If we did that, the guy doing primary care (any age) should always beat out the guy who just wants to make a lot of money doing breast enhancements for aspiring strippers. But actually as a taxpayer we actually pony up more for the residency of the guy doing the latter. And you could come up with hundreds of other dubious physician roles we are going to similarly fund that wouldn't be as valuable as the 10 year career horizon of the OP should he go into a needed specialty. You really can't make the blanket statement that an older person won't be a good use of our $, because on a case by case basis that may not be true.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

As mentioned you can not legally discriminate based on age or based on many physical impairments. It's illegal for a reason. This was debated in the country ad nauseum and congressionally resolved and no reason to revisit it here with less informed minds. There are protected classes and adcoms are aware and dont overtly violate the law.

Additionally, we really don't ever give priority to those who will do more for society coming out of residency. If we did that, the guy doing primary care (any age) should always beat out the guy who just wants to make a lot of money doing breast enhancements for aspiring strippers. But actually as a taxpayer we actually pony up more for the residency of the guy doing the latter. And you could come up with hundreds of other dubious physician roles we are going to similarly fund that wouldn't be as valuable as the 10 year career horizon of the OP should he go into a needed specialty. You really can't make the blanket statement that an older person won't be a good use of our $, because on a case by case basis that may not be true.

Well, we do. There are physical requirements for becoming a doctor. You can't be a paraplegic and get into medical school. I'm arguing to extend that to age too. I'm not saying that in the current system that would fly. We also can't predict who will go to primary care unless we have people signing a contract before medical school.

 

[Law2Doc]

Well, we do. There are physical requirements for becoming a doctor. You can't be a paraplegic and get into medical school. I'm arguing to extend that to age too. I'm not saying that in the current system that would fly. We also can't predict who will go to primary care unless we have people signing a contract before medical school.

Um, there have been paraplegics who have graduated from med school. And blind people too. The issue is one of whether "reasonable" accommodations can be made and what is reasonable. (And a whole set of different reaonbleness hurdles at the residency level.) so if you want to extend the reasonable accommodation argument to older people, I'd say many can complete the schooling and training without accomodation.

As for not being able to gauge who is going into primary care, that's kind of my point. Many of the young people we admit to med school aren't going to use our taxpayer dollars the way we would like so your argument that an older person is always the worse investment is just false. Unless you are going to try and screen for the more altruistic primary care types, I think you have to assume every young person you fund is going to take your residency money, use it in a way that benefits themselves more and society less, and then try to retire early. The older person with a shorter career horizon to start with and less chance of landing one of the uber competitive spots is probably going to give you a more predictable return on your investment.