What would you change if you worked in medical school admissions?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You shouldn't have made the assumptions you made about individuals in the first place because you're doing not only yourself but others who dont fit into the boxes you mentioned an incredible disservice with your myopathy.

You've been overly fond of using the word "myopic," in an "I do not think it means what you think it means" sense. But myopathy is definitely not the word you want here.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
You've been overly fond of using the word "myopic," in an "I do not think it means what you think it means" sense. But myopathy is definitely not the word you want here.
*myopic, it means short-sighted which he is, but a disease in muscle tissue could produce a similar effect lmao.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I'd screen for secondaries. I'll tell you what, these schools that send secondaries to every bloody applicant can be ridiculously slow.
Not to mention this practice is nearly criminal considering some secondaries exceed $100 a pop. Just plain stupid.
 
Call me old fashioned, but if I am a patient I would care little about the qualifications of my doctor outside of the field of medicine. If my doctor plays ten instruments or acted on Broadway, my response would be "Huh, cool good for you buddy". At the end of the day, when I am the patient (which is hopefully almost never), I want the expert, not the person with an eclectic variety of skills from a past career. I want my doctor to be an expert in his/her field, and I would care very little, if anything, beyond that. More often than not, that expert will be the science-geek (whether that person does research or not, I don't care) who is well-read in current treatments and is a leader in their respective field.

umm, dude. We're selecting potential first-year med students. There's no such thing as an "expert" in medicine at that juncture. We're selecting people who have the potential to develop into experts with time and years of experience. Best to select the student who already has experience at to the top of their respective activity than just some schmuck with a bio degree. *and I say that as someone who was basically that schmuck when I applied.

You mentioned being a football/soccer fan. The faculty interviewer at the school I ultimately attended was a British guy and we basically spent the whole 40 minutes talking about the 2006 world cup. I was accepted a week later. I found it kind of funny like I got away with something when it happened (keeping in mind that pro soccer was a lot less popular back then) but in hindsight, those random non-medically related conversations are the things I talk about with my patients every day...not the time I cut up mouse embryos for science. I'm on home call right now after a REALLY shiatty day at the office. What made it challenging wasn't the science or the pharmacology or the management of complex medical conditions, it was dealing with people. The science can be taught. The maturity to handle the other stuff, not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Decrease the fetish for people with superstar qualities in non-medically related stuff. Being a gifted musician or athlete does not make you a better candidate for physician. A majority of people choose to pursue medicine because they, gasp, are most talented in the sciences. So why should they be punished for engaging in "cookie-cutter" premed activities like shadowing and research when that's probably what they are genuinely interested in and good at?

I see how this can be frustrating, and still, I think there's a place for these skills and accomplishments in the admissions process.

Skills in other fields are absolutely applicable. If you sang on Broadway, do I as a normal patient who doesn't sing care? Not particularly. How about when the singer/actor comes to your practice and asks about relevant side effects? Who's more likely to mention that a medication causes hoarseness: a physician who sang professionally or one who has never pursued music?

Similarly, say a patient is an athlete and comes in with a sprained ankle. Who is best equipped to understand this complaint? Someone who does no sports? Or someone who was a varsity basketball player?

Now, maybe there's something in between. Maybe you don't have to do all of these things professionally to have profound insight. But everything you participate in has an impact on your skill set and your understanding of what medical intervention someone needs to maintain maximal function. The higher up you are in skill and functioning, the better-equipped you are to understand a patient in that field who has an injury or illness.

In other words, I love the fact that medical schools often focus on exceptional people. Does every physician need to be an Olympic swimmer? No. But does having an experience like that enhance your understanding of a patient population? Probably.

As an aside, the amount of work it requires to reach such a level really does parallel the amount of work it takes to do well in medical school. I see no reason that this shouldn't be taken into account irrespective of the insight this kind of experience gives you.
 
I would put more influence on extracurricular and less on the MCAT
 
Increase transparency, especially for waitlisted applicants because they are significantly invested in a specific school already and they deserve to have a more clear idea of the chances of their life changing within the next few months, so that they can make adequate preparations. An example would be to at least tell them what "tier" they are in, like based on evidence from previous years, you have a good chance of getting in, or you may or may not get in, or you probably won't get in.

Decrease the fetish for people with superstar qualities in non-medically related stuff. Being a gifted musician or athlete does not make you a better candidate for physician. A majority of people choose to pursue medicine because they, gasp, are most talented in the sciences. So why should they be punished for engaging in "cookie-cutter" premed activities like shadowing and research when that's probably what they are genuinely interested in and good at?

If I knew as a freshman what medical school admissions would be like today, I would have went to art school. Maybe auditioned for Broadway or TV or Hollywood, most likely commercials. Go back for a postbac, crush it and get a 4.0. Let's be real, admissions has more in common with casting for a sitcom or drafting football players than actually choosing students that would succeed, at least, that's what I think every time I hear that schools are "choosing their class".

I am young but just old enough (22) to remember the time when admissions was simpler and my undergrad had respectable placement. We didn't have to worry about being Peyton Manning or the next Van Goghs to succeed in admissions, just major in whatever (special snowflake majors had no advantage over cookie cutter bio/chem majors) and get the requirements out of the way.
 
If I knew as a freshman what medical school admissions would be like today, I would have went to art school. Maybe auditioned for Broadway or TV or Hollywood, most likely commercials. Go back for a postbac, crush it and get a 4.0. Let's be real, admissions has more in common with casting for a sitcom or drafting football players than actually choosing students that would succeed, at least, that's what I think every time I hear that schools are "choosing their class".

But people who have actually completed the process keep telling you that all the things you dismiss are actually reasonable predictors of success. The fact that you keep claiming to know better- and the fact that you define "capable of success" as "a profile that looks exactly like mine" makes it seem like your complaints are 100% sour grapes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
But people who have actually completed the process keep telling you that all the things you dismiss are actually reasonable predictors of success. The fact that you keep claiming to know better- and the fact that you define "capable of success" as "a profile that looks exactly like mine" makes it seem like your complaints are 100% sour grapes.

Let's also not forget the fact that this "superstar musician/broadway singer/starting QB" is still to some degree an SDN trope perpetuated by bitter pre-allo posters.

While schools do take candidates with unique or interesting backgrounds, the average medical school matriculant is still a traditional, undergrad BS major. Med schools take plenty of them too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Decrease the fetish for people with superstar qualities in non-medically related stuff. Being a gifted musician or athlete does not make you a better candidate for physician. A majority of people choose to pursue medicine because they, gasp, are most talented in the sciences. So why should they be punished for engaging in "cookie-cutter" premed activities like shadowing and research when that's probably what they are genuinely interested in and good at?

I think you (and @Officer Farva) overestimate the size of this fetish. An applicant who is particularly accomplished in some other realm is likely to stand out a bit more from the pack, but that does not change the fundamental calculus of whether to offer admission.

The need for tons of interesting EC's has been driven by the applicants, not the adcoms. We simply lay out the wares and pick from what's available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If I knew as a freshman what medical school admissions would be like today, I would have went to art school. Maybe auditioned for Broadway or TV or Hollywood, most likely commercials. Go back for a postbac, crush it and get a 4.0. Let's be real, admissions has more in common with casting for a sitcom or drafting football players than actually choosing students that would succeed, at least, that's what I think every time I hear that schools are "choosing their class".

I am young but just old enough (22) to remember the time when admissions was simpler and my undergrad had respectable placement. We didn't have to worry about being Peyton Manning or the next Van Goghs to succeed in admissions, just major in whatever (special snowflake majors had no advantage over cookie cutter bio/chem majors) and get the requirements out of the way.

Don't want to come off as condescending or mean and I'm really sorry if I do. But what makes you think even if you did go into the arts that you would have made it far enough to even audition....? Going into art school or any sort of performing academy doesn't mean you would have made it as an artist haha...

And honestly, you could claim yourself in admissions as an artist or whatever, but you had to have won competitions, fellowships or a job or SOMETHING in that field first. And the reality (pure numbers based) for most in that field is that they won't win something like that.

So...you make it sound all easy like its the easier route. Chances are you wouldn't have even made it into the live audition.

EDIT: I would also like to add that my music degree wasn't a GPA padder. I actually had a sub 3.5 GPA, and had to work and worry my butt off the ENTIRE post bac just to pull my cGPA up to acceptable. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You make it sound like a 4.0 post bac is easy. It isn't. Why do you see students worrying about taking ochem, physics and bio all at the same time? Cause it's not easy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
If I knew as a freshman what medical school admissions would be like today, I would have went to art school. Maybe auditioned for Broadway or TV or Hollywood, most likely commercials. Go back for a postbac, crush it and get a 4.0. Let's be real, admissions has more in common with casting for a sitcom or drafting football players than actually choosing students that would succeed, at least, that's what I think every time I hear that schools are "choosing their class".

I am young but just old enough (22) to remember the time when admissions was simpler and my undergrad had respectable placement. We didn't have to worry about being Peyton Manning or the next Van Goghs to succeed in admissions, just major in whatever (special snowflake majors had no advantage over cookie cutter bio/chem majors) and get the requirements out of the way.
Didn't you get like 16 interviews? Your path was fine if you could interview decently.
And yeah, you should have to worry about people who have actually done something really well because it's a good predictor of doing other things really well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Don't want to come off as condescending or mean and I'm really sorry if I do. But what makes you think even if you did go into the arts that you would have made it far enough to even audition....? Going into art school or any sort of performing academy doesn't mean you would have made it as an artist haha...

And honestly, you could claim yourself in admissions as an artist or whatever, but you had to have won competitions, fellowships or a job or SOMETHING in that field first. And the reality (pure numbers based) for most in that field is that they won't win something like that.

So...you make it sound all easy like its the easier route. Chances are you wouldn't have even made it into the live audition.

EDIT: I would also like to add that my music degree wasn't a GPA padder. I actually had a sub 3.5 GPA, and had to work and worry my butt off the ENTIRE post bac just to pull my cGPA up to acceptable. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You make it sound like a 4.0 post bac is easy. It isn't. Why do you see students worrying about taking ochem, physics and bio all at the same time? Cause it's not easy

You are right, probably would not have made it past the audition. At one point, I loved playing piano and guitar! However, it is just a hobby for a reason. Let's just say I am not going to be famous for that hahaha ;) I did not mean to make it sound easier, so sorry about that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One more thing: Get rid of the MMI.

And this is coming from the guy who was criticizing the interview process and application process before: Just sit down with me and talk to me like a regular person, get to know me a little. Traditional interviews >>>>>>>>>MMI
 
I have a little trouble believing the Cat is the same loose cannon in this thread or mr125h! But the Cat had something like 20+ interviews and only one accet. I can't divulge details, but there's a logical explanation, I feel, for the multiple II:poor accept rate.

Who is this Monster_Cat figure?


i don't have the citation andy, but there's published data showing that that MMI is a good predictor/identifier of empathy.

One more thing: Get rid of the MMI.

And this is coming from the guy who was criticizing the interview process and application process before: Just sit down with me and talk to me like a regular person, get to know me a little. Traditional interviews >>>>>>>>>MMI


Indeed! No one put a gun to my head and ordered me onto the Adcom; it was an invitation from the Admissions dean and it is the one role I prize the most.

This has not been my experience. I have plenty of experience to the contrary, in fact. You have no basis for saying that "more often than not that's what happens." Most interviewers are well-meaning volunteers, not "high ranking." Hundreds of faculty observers/interviewers are necessary, not some small evil cadre.






What, you're expecting med schools to forgo a tax on the stupid? Sorry, but people who fail to do a t least a modicum of due diligence in this process deserve to get taken. The $25 spent on MSAR Online alone could save hundreds in app fees.


Also if my med school highly discriminated against OOS students, I'd put a giant warning that OOS students are seldom considered and say which schools are. It's atrocious that schools like University of Kentucky claimed holistic review for OOS students only to reject them solely based off of a metric in actuality during screening.
yea, no more OOS people applying to morehouse. Morehouse is literally swimming in $ for OOS students who have the misfortune to apply there.


Again with the mania on stats? The process is not merely to find the best med students, but people who will be the best doctors. Smart doesn't necessarily mean good. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen.

Stick with the programming job offer.

Basically everything you said about interviews for me as well. I dealt with too many crazies. The days are too long. Traveling is expensive.

Also, I would stop the special-snowflake selection process of finding applicants who are ex-gold medal athletes or broadway performers. And just focus on the brightest aspiring doctors or researchers. Not everyone has to be a researcher of course. But I trust a scientific mind more clinically than a special snowflake.



Tell it to Marco Rubio, because this is exactly how these people sound at interviews.

Another thing - stop taking off points from people for being scripted. It's so subjective and people with certain demeanors may appear scripted. I get medical schools want to see who we really are, but when interviewers can flatly read questions off of a piece of paper, what's the issue with having a prepared answer? Most schools ask the same exact questions anyway, so it's hard not to be scripted if you do multiple interviews, and schools literally reject people for being scripted. So at that point you're basically getting rejected for being too damn prepared, which is utter bull.


See note above re: stats.

I only disagree with #7. If anything, MCAT and Last45 GPA should mean MORE than they do currently. They should outweigh every piece of shadowing and volunteer activity because they are FAR better predictors of long-term success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Personally my least favorite part of the admissions process is the quasi-requirement of shadowing and clinical volunteering. I enjoy volunteering, and used to do it all the time...in high school, when I wasn't working three jobs and taking 17+ credit hours a semester. I don't live near home, so I don't know (or know anyone who knows) local docs who allow students to shadow. Our pre-health office has been utterly useless in helping students find physicians who are okay with pre-med shadows, and that's with an MD school on our campus. And honestly, I don't have the time to dedicate to shadowing that it would take for me to actually learn a lot from it. Between jobs and school, I have trouble finding time during regular business hours when I could/can spend any significant chunk of time shadowing someone.

tl;dr: Shadowing and volunteering are great, but a student who doesn't have them isn't necessarily an awful, selfish person who doesn't really know if they want to be a doctor. They might just be busy trying not to drown in debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
One more thing: Get rid of the MMI.

And this is coming from the guy who was criticizing the interview process and application process before: Just sit down with me and talk to me like a regular person, get to know me a little. Traditional interviews >>>>>>>>>MMI

n=1 but my only MMI interview was actually my favorite interview out of my four total. I just pretended like it was a game show and there was a million dollars waiting for me if I did the best. I will probably matriculate there too lol -- good vibes all around from that school!

Edit: n=2. I interviewed approximately two months later at another school (traditional interview) and an applicant that was literally next to me during the 9 MMI rounds two months prior was sitting next to me at the traditional interview!!! We both laughed at the odds that we interviewed at same day and time at both schools, then agreed that the MMI was pretty cool and felt like a well-rounded, less subjective interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Let's also not forget the fact that this "superstar musician/broadway singer/starting QB" is still to some degree an SDN trope perpetuated by bitter pre-allo posters.

While schools do take candidates with unique or interesting backgrounds, the average medical school matriculant is still a traditional, undergrad BS major. Med schools take plenty of them too.

There's always a sad but interesting psychology that's at play whenever applicants come across an asymmetry/advantage in the numbers game of competitive admissions. A small group of applicants get a leg up for whatever reason, and all the other applicants notice is "that's not FAIR! THAT is the reason I didn't get in." Explains the vitriol that gets spewed here in all the AA threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
There's always a sad but interesting psychology that's at play whenever applicants come across an asymmetry/advantage in the numbers game of competitive admissions. A small group of applicants get a leg up for whatever reason, and all the other applicants notice is "that's not FAIR! THAT is the reason I didn't get in." Explains the vitriol that gets spewed here in all the AA threads.

sw011703d_lr.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Not sure if anyone mentioned this lol but if I were in admissions, I would do away with the picture requirement that applicants have to send along with their secondary. If the point of the picture is to make sure that adcoms remember you after your interview, I'd require a photo only after the applicant is invited for an interview. Otherwise, sending in a photo along with your secondary is pointless and may even lead to bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Not sure if anyone mentioned this lol but if I were in admissions, I would do away with the picture requirement that applicants have to send along with their secondary. If the point of the picture is to make sure that adcoms remember you after your interview, I'd require a photo only after the applicant is invited for an interview. Otherwise, sending in a photo along with your secondary is pointless and may even lead to bias.

Didn't know that was a thing. It does sound kind of weird to ask for one pre interview
 


Unless you're a URM there's no reason why you'd defend this process. It's absolute BS for med school and your pic applies more to more to undergrad.


score to percentile on the mcat:
https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...7a4/finalpercentileranksfortheoldmcatexam.pdf
african-american acceptance percentile based off of mcat/gpa:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321514/data/factstablea24-2.pdf

at a 3.20-3.39 gpa and 24-26 (basically 40th percentile) mcat the chances of getting an acceptance are 56.4%

white people acceptance off mcat/gpa:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321518/data/factstablea24-4.pdf
in order to have the same chance with a 3.20-3.39 gpa a white person must score in the 97th percentile on the mcat to have a 54% (around the same chances)


It's absolute crap that an african-american can get interviews at UCLA and UCSF with such low mcats meanwhile someone white has to do better than 97% of people to have the same chance. It's blatantly unfair and needs to be put to an end.
 
Unless you're a URM there's no reason why you'd defend this process. It's absolute BS for med school and your pic applies more to more to undergrad.


score to percentile on the mcat:
https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...7a4/finalpercentileranksfortheoldmcatexam.pdf
african-american acceptance percentile based off of mcat/gpa:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321514/data/factstablea24-2.pdf

at a 3.20-3.39 gpa and 24-26 (basically 40th percentile) mcat the chances of getting an acceptance are 56.4%

white people acceptance off mcat/gpa:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321518/data/factstablea24-4.pdf
in order to have the same chance with a 3.20-3.39 gpa a white person must score in the 97th percentile on the mcat to have a 54% (around the same chances)


It's absolute crap that an african-american can get interviews at UCLA and UCSF with such low mcats meanwhile someone white has to do better than 97% of people to have the same chance. It's blatantly unfair and needs to be put to an end.
It's always nice to have my point proven for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I hope you figure out how insulting it is when a user talks **** about an entire group of people for no reason like hopeful does. His future patient roster would be vacant if they say those posts.

It's absolute crap that an african-american can get interviews at UCLA and UCSF with such low mcats meanwhile someone white has to do better than 97% of people to have the same chance. It's blatantly unfair and needs to be put to an end.
:whistle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Look at the stats and tell me that's fair. URMs have a ridiculous advantage over normal applicants.

It's always nice to have my point proven for me.

Only thing I proved was urms have it way easier from an admissions stand point. Imagine being denied because you had to have a ridiculously high mcat score (in the 97th percentile) while a urm can waltz into top schools with a 40th percentile score and get accepted. it's crap.
 
Go ahead and report them. It is more likely to improve your odds than hurt them. No admissions dean wants a bad interviewer and they can't get rid of them without a report.
Aren't the interviews at some schools recorded? if so, why can't the dean just watch some videos and see who's good or not?
 
Aren't the interviews at some schools recorded? if so, why can't the dean just watch some videos and see who's good or not?

Key word: some as not in mostly all of them aren't. Even then do you think the adcoms have the time to watch that many hours of footage to make their own interpretation?
 
Look at the stats and tell me that's fair. URMs have a ridiculous advantage over normal applicants.
I do see that the numbers are different, but numbers alone leave out so much of this equation.

First, the goal of medical schools is to train a population of physicians that are not only capable, but the most capable, of providing quality care. As the nation becomes more diverse and the makeup of physicians does not, there is a strong demand for a diverse work force from public health and medical organizations alike. Diversity is essential (read: not only "important" or "optional"), not only to provide a diverse work force, but to enrich the education of every class (read: white and asian people benefit, too). Additionally, schools want people who have had valuable and diverse experiences, and a very significant and real way that applicants are different from each other is race.

tl;dr: Diversity matters to medical schools, and for good reason.

Second, "fairness" is a very bold and ironic objection to race-based admissions considerations given the historical and modern subjugation and disadvantage of minority people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I do see that the numbers are different, but numbers alone leave out so much of this equation.

First, the goal of medical schools is to train a population of physicians that are not only capable, but the most capable, of providing quality care. As the nation becomes more diverse and the makeup of physicians does not, there is a strong demand for a diverse work force from public health and medical organizations alike. Diversity is essential (read: not only "important" or "optional"), not only to provide a diverse work force, but to enrich the education of every class (read: white and asian people benefit, too). Additionally, schools want people who have had valuable and diverse experiences, and a very significant and real way that applicants are different from each other is race.

tl;dr: Diversity matters to medical schools, and for good reason.

Second, "fairness" is a very bold and ironic objection to race-based admissions considerations given the historical and modern subjugation and disadvantage of minority people.

There's far more to diversity than race, such as SES and actual diversity in opinions and understanding of the world. You can have a room full of 10 white people that are far more diverse in understanding than a room full of a 100 people of different races simply because of the experience and understanding they have, but this is blatantly overlooked in med school admissions where diversity is defined in terms of race.

The whole diversity of race adding to education is iffy, diversity in opinion, experiences, and thought is far more desirable. This racial diversity business although races should have equal representation undermines admitting the most well-qualified applicants and makes admissions way harder for people who are just born a different race. Seriously 97th percentile compared to 40th percentile mcat, ****ing come on. You can be an apologist about it, but there's far more to diversity than race and the current system doesn't do a good job of selecting applicants based off of that. Also, the whole idea of people mainly trusting doctors of their own race is bull, a culturally attuned and informed doctor can offer a lot in terms of facilitating a strong doctor-patient relationship regardless of race.

Also, this race based admissions system wouldn't do the same for caucasians if they were underrepresented. That's simply not part of the M.O. Being held accountable to higher standards because of the race you are is just ****ing broken, and downplays individuality and merit of admissions.

None of this solves the problem of racial inequality either, it just simply redistributes racial inequality in a different way. Limiting asian and white applicants is no different than yale's old jewish quota. It's just self-serving racism.
 
Also this process is so competitive and rigorous than even a few underqualified URMs are enough to make your application slip through the cracks. the lower standards they have for urms like admitting a 26 mcat URM with almost no medical volunteering or shadowing (how do they even have an idea of what medicine is like?) to UCLA is just so incredibly flawed.
 
The whole diversity of race adding to education is iffy...diversity in opinion, experiences, and thought is far more desirable.


Unfortunately, quantifying differences in opinion and experience is much more difficult than simply looking at the color of one's skin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Unfortunately, quantifying differences in opinion and experience is much more difficult than simply looking at the color of one's skin.

and just looking at someone's skin and using it to make a decision is another form of racism no matter how you skin it. It's a blatant oversimplification too. Even if I got a further look at my app because of race, I'd be upset because instead of looking at my application for a valid reason (achievements, personal narrative etc) they only did so because of my skin color.

They can use ECs and writing in the PS and secondaries to quantify diversity. Beats the **** out of race.
 
I don't want to come off as patronizing/condescending, so I apologize if I come off so beforehand. Regardless of however insulting you view some posters' posts, it doesn't make it okay for you to "bite" back. I'm not saying be a doormat (there are definitely some poster's posts here that get on my nerves, and I try my best to conceal it but of course sometimes I fail at it too), but I think there are ways to voice your displeasure at people without insulting them. It only makes you look bad and fails to get your point across, and perhaps even gives the other person the satisfaction knowing they got you to retaliate in a way that puts you in a negative light. I think @Spinach Dip was just trying to get at the same point in a more blunt manner.

There are real people behind these screens...and I like being on here because people in general are pretty level-headed even if they really disagree with each other. Insults being thrown back and forth kind of take away from that...

If that's what he meant he should have said that instead of saying "i hope someone from admissions reads what you write and rejects you". What you say goes just as much for what he said as it goes for what I say. Not to mention look at all the people jumping on me for goofy reasons in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Very opinionated + prolific / similar politics

Edit: Iono maybe I remember wrong

Honestly the medical school admissions process is a catalyst to becoming strongly opinionated. I was before, but going through hell for an acceptance does this, and lets you see all the ugly flaws in this process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Since the previous warning to keep it civil has been blatantly ignored, this thread is now closed.

I highly recommend not engaging with people you believe are trolls. Report, ignore, move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top