Would you support requiring a minimum age of 22 or at least one gap year before applying?

[piii]

How about requiring an applicant to have a full time job and being financially independent before applying?

Just curious.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hungrybox]

The fact that you're asking this question leads me to believe that you have strongly considered this.

Personally, I've never once considered this. The concept is entirely foreign to me.

Seeing as I haven't thought about this idea enough to come up with a coherent answer, I'd like to hear what your reasoning would be for supporting this.

 

[kb1900]

No this is a terrible idea and I would be 200% against it.

 

[patientvomits]

That sounds like a terrible idea. What an unnecessary waste of time. It is also biased against people of poorer backgrounds that can't really afford to work a minimum wage scribe job and give up a couple years of their life.

If anything, I would add more extensive career experience in middle school and high school so that kids know more clearly what path they want in college. Then I would streamline the pre-med curriculum and make a two year pre-med track that has bio, Chem/orgo/physics/math (only the small portion that you need to know as a physician) so that you can go into med school by 19 or 20, and be working as an attending by late 20s/early 30s.

Doctors are highly trained professionals. Every year of unnecessary training and education is 1) an unnecessary debt burden 2) an opportunity cost for the physician and for society which misses on that doctor's service.

 

[Lucca]

Yeah bad idea. Not sure what you would be trying to accomplish

 

[hungrybox]

Ok I think it's clear what the consensus of the board is - that this would be a bad idea. I was leaning that way myself.

I still want to hear out the OP, though. Surely you've thought of some reasons for entertaining this idea. What are they?

 

[piii]

The fact that you're asking this question leads me to believe that you have strongly considered this.

Personally, I've never once considered this. The concept is entirely foreign to me.

Seeing as I haven't thought about this idea enough to come up with a coherent answer, I'd like to hear what your reasoning would be for supporting this.

It's not something I'm considering. I've just heard it being proposed and I wanted to hear thoughts. I don't lean one way or the other.

One of the arguments for it is that residencies are starting to place emphasis on full time work experience. Some of the attendings in my school's ED and ENT department actively rank residents that have more life experience, took gap years, have full time work experience. So, it actually matters to people controlling your fate.

No this is a terrible idea and I would be 200% against it.

Love to hear your reasoning.

That sounds like a terrible idea. What an unnecessary waste of time. It is also biased against people of poorer backgrounds that can't really afford to work a minimum wage scribe job and give up a couple years of their life.

If anything, I would add more extensive career experience in middle school and high school so that kids know more clearly what path they want in college. Then I would streamline the pre-med curriculum and make a two year pre-med track that has bio, Chem/orgo/physics/math (only the small portion that you need to know as a physician) so that you can go into med school by 19 or 20, and be working as an attending by late 20s/early 30s.

Doctors are highly trained professionals. Every year of unnecessary training and education is 1) an unnecessary debt burden 2) an opportunity cost for the physician and for society which misses on that doctor's service.

That's a good point. The gist is to fix the current system. Finding a way to ensure applicants have work force skills but also lower the debt burden is important.

 

[piii]

Ok I think it's clear what the consensus of the board is - that this would be a bad idea. I was leaning that way myself.

I still want to hear out the OP, though. Surely you've thought of some reasons for entertaining this idea. What are they?

Other reasons include that young applicants without diverse experiences may be going in for the wrong reasons, aren't well rounded, are immature, would benefit from more experience in the work force before entering medical school. I understand this forum will be biased as most are young premeds, but try playing devils advocate.

 

[hungrybox]

It's not something I'm considering. I've just heard it being proposed and I wanted to hear thoughts. I don't learn one way or the other.

One of the arguments for it is that residencies are starting to place emphasis on full time work experience. Some of the attendings in my school's ED and ENT department actively rank residents that have more life experience, took gap years, have full time work experience. So, it actually matters to people controlling your fate.

Really?

Well if people in leadership strongly believe this and there's a good chance that this trend continues, then I think it won't be long before medical schools start dropping in competitiveness.

A single gap year is already a de facto requirement due to the new MCAT implementing biochemistry, which most students don't learn until their 3rd year of undergrad. One gap year BEFORE applying equals two gap years total. Once word gets out that the youngest you could be is 32 in order to become a fully fledged physician, it won't be long before the medical schools will have serious trouble filling spots.

Other reasons include that young applicants without diverse experiences may be going in for the wrong reasons, aren't well rounded, are immature, would benefit from more experience in the work force before entering medical school. I understand this forum will be biased as most are young premeds, but try playing devils advocate.

As a devils advocate, time to go into IB. Just kidding

 

[Lucca]

Other reasons include that young applicants without diverse experiences may be going in for the wrong reasons, aren't well rounded, are immature, would benefit from more experience in the work force before entering medical school. I understand this forum will be biased as most are young premeds, but try playing devils advocate.

Mmm maybe but that if taking a gap year or working is a requirement and not a decision then it just becomes another box to tick, don't expect people coming out of box-ticking to be enlightened and reflective individuals.

 

[Lucca]

Really?

Well if people in leadership strongly believe this and there's a good chance that this trend continues, then I think it won't be long before medical schools start dropping in competitiveness.

A single gap year is already a de facto requirement due to the new MCAT implementing biochemistry, which most students don't learn until their 3rd year of undergrad. One gap year BEFORE applying equals two gap years total. Once word gets out that the youngest you could be is 32 in order to become a fully fledged physician, it won't be long before the medical schools will have serious trouble filling spots.

A trend certainly exists but gap years are not de facto requirements. Probably 40% of matriculants are K->MD applicants. Also, when the majority of matriculants are "nontrad", do you really think that being "32" when you hit attending status is going to deter a lot of people who would have been very excited as long as they finished residency at "31"?

 

[hungrybox]

A trend certainly exists but gap years are not de facto requirements. Probably 40% of matriculants are K->MD applicants.

I'm willing to bet it goes up sharply this cycle because of the new MCAT. Going off of the numbers you posted, I'm going to guess that this year only 35% will be K -> MD applicants. Once it's a ll said and done, where could I check my prediction?

 

[piii]

Mmm maybe but that if taking a gap year or working is a requirement and not a decision then it just becomes another box to tick, don't expect people coming out of box-ticking to be enlightened and reflective individuals.

True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.

 

[Lucca]

I'm willing to bet it goes up sharply this cycle because of the new MCAT. Going off of the numbers you posted, I'm going to guess that this year only 35% will be K -> MD applicants. Once it's a ll said and done, where could I check my prediction?

When AAMC releases the data for this cycle

 

[hungrybox]

True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.

Seems a bit like they're trying to solve one problem by making more problems. I understand the problems you've outlined, but I just don't see why the solution outlined in your OP is the right one. I would be curious as to what their thinking is.

When AAMC releases the data for this cycle

I see

 

[piii]

Seems a bit like they're trying to solve one problem by making more problems. I understand the problems you've outlined, but I just don't see why the solution outlined in your OP is the right one. I would be curious as to what their thinking is.

I mean think about it from there perspective. They're just attendings/directors for a residency program. What's easier for them to do: change the entire medical school application structure with the AAMC, or select their residents in part using prior work experience and other methods of "maturity"? Pretty straight forward.

 

[Lucca]

True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.

Will someone who worked retail for a year be more professional than someone who didnt? How about someone who did independent research? I'm not sure if it is a better metric than characteristics from undergrad already are.

 

[piii]

Will someone who worked retail for a year be more professional than someone who didnt? How about someone who did independent research? I'm not sure if it is a better metric than characteristics from undergrad already are.

Think of it more like this. You're deciding to rank two residency applicants. They both have similar board scores, research in the field, clinical grades, and were great at the interview. Applicant A spent an extra 3 years between college and medical school working to support him/herself with 50-60 hour work weeks, was financially independent, has great letters from bossess. Applicant B went straight to medical school, only work experience was summer research labs and volunteering. It would fair to think that, for the purpose of hiring a coworker, Applicant A would be a better gamble.

 

[hungrybox]

I mean think about it from there perspective. They're just attendings/directors for a residency program. What's easier for them to do: change the entire medical school application structure with the AAMC, or select their residents in part using prior work experience and other methods of "maturity"? Pretty straight forward.

True. That reasoning makes logical sense, but in my opinion it's a terrible reason in every other sense. I'm hoping the physicians you spoke about constitute only a small minority of PD's.

If the AAMC started instituting hard requirements for gap years before applying to MD schools, I think it would be really interesting to see how many years they could require before DO schools started becoming more competitive than MD schools.

I'm willing to bet that 3 gap years would be the tipping point.

 

[skrolls]

The average age of matriculation is already naturally going up as students take longer to finish undergrad and more non-trads apply. There is no need for a rule like this.

 

[Cotterpin]

Will someone who worked retail for a year be more professional than someone who didnt? How about someone who did independent research? I'm not sure if it is a better metric than characteristics from undergrad already are.

I don't think working in retail for a year would make someone more "professional," necessarily, but it would definitely teach other important life skills that you wouldn't get out of independent research. Particularly in terms of interpersonal skills. For instance, an independent researcher will never have to deal with an angry, possible drunk and/or crazy customer/patient coming in and yelling at them, but a retail employee or a physician might. And then there's all the basic skills like how to deal with coworkers and work schedules and budgeting and the list goes on and on.

 

[Ampharos]

I can't afford a gap year. I think such a requirement would hurt those who have trouble finding financial support for that year or already have loans incurring interest from undergrad. My vote is no.

 

[tessellations]

One of the big reasons I'm leaning against not taking a gap year is because of the financial burden it would cause in terms of loans and supporting myself. It can be hard to find a year long job with just a science degree (which I know not everyone has, but lbr, a lot of people do).

When it comes down to it, everyone matures differently. When I shadowed a family doc who had her own practice, her 24/5 year old nephew worked there as a medical assistant and he wanted to go to medical school, but wasn't quite ready to apply. During lunch time, she told me that a lot of undergrads aren't really ready even when they graduate. I was very lucky and grateful to hear that she was surprised by my maturity and initiative just as a rising junior. The point is, some people are mature, regardless of life and work experience, at 22 and others aren't ready until 25 or 30, or even beyond. Does life experience certainly help? Of course! I'll admit that my own personal family circumstances forced me to grow up quicker than most my age, but that doesn't mean you have to have those experiences to be mature.

Ultimately, it's up to admissions committee's to decide if someone is ready for medical school. I imagine that while ADCOMS aren't perfect, they likely have a lot of wisdom when it comes to finding a good fit.

 

[Promethean]

So, I applied in my late 30's. The vast difference between my life experience and my traditional classmates was very interesting to me. But the biggest differences were nothing that a year or two of enforced waiting would change.

A couple of guys who sit near me were talking about how it might be interesting to get a part time job over the summer, just for a week or two, to find out what it is like to have one. Both are from affluent backgrounds and had literally never worked for an employer even one day in their lives. They've never not known how the rent would get paid, or what it is like to go without eating for a couple of days because there is no food and no money to buy any, or how it feels to wear shoes with holes in them in the winter. There are challenges that many of their patients will experience that they cannot even imagine.

A minimum age, or a requirement to have worked at a job, or even to have gone on a mission trip, none of those things are going to ensure that anyone has a wide range of life experiences. Even if you required people to have a prescribed set of character building experiences, they would still know that they had their normal lives to get back to, their career ladder would be there waiting for them. You'd just be introducing a new set of barriers, a new set of boxes to be checked. At that would be easier for some than for others.

You'd also be unnecessarily limiting the progress of that handful of gifted folks who are ahead of the academic game. Why do that? What on earth would you gain?

We already have a good system of evaluating applicants on meaningful measures of maturity and potential. Nothing would be gained by adding a new, inflexible barrier.

 

[Lucca]

So, I applied in my late 30's. The vast difference between my life experience and my traditional classmates was very interesting to me. But the biggest differences were nothing that a year or two of enforced waiting would change.

A couple of guys who sit near me were talking about how it might be interesting to get a part time job over the summer, just for a week or two, to find out what it is like to have one. Both are from affluent backgrounds and had literally never worked for an employer even one day in their lives. They've never not known how the rent would get paid, or what it is like to go without eating for a couple of days because there is no food and no money to buy any, or how it feels to wear shoes with holes in them in the winter. There are challenges that many of their patients will experience that they cannot even imagine.

A minimum age, or a requirement to have worked at a job, or even to have gone on a mission trip, none of those things are going to ensure that anyone has a wide range of life experiences. Even if you required people to have a prescribed set of character building experiences, they would still know that they had their normal lives to get back to, their career ladder would be there waiting for them. You'd just be introducing a new set of barriers, a new set of boxes to be checked. At that would be easier for some than for others.

You'd also be unnecessarily limiting the progress of that handful of gifted folks who are ahead of the academic game. Why do that? What on earth would you gain?

We already have a good system of evaluating applicants on meaningful measures of maturity and potential. Nothing would be gained by adding a new, inflexible barrier.

Yeah, I feel like age in the OP suggestion is being used as a proxy to measure something else entirely which wont really be captured by any single variable.

 

[tessellations]

A minimum age, or a requirement to have worked at a job, or even to have gone on a mission trip, none of those things are going to ensure that anyone has a wide range of life experiences. Even if you required people to have a prescribed set of character building experiences, they would still know that they had their normal lives to get back to, their career ladder would be there waiting for them. You'd just be introducing a new set of barriers, a new set of boxes to be checked. At that would be easier for some than for others.

I think you hit the nail on the head here and in your whole original post in general. Plenty of people who apply to medical school come from privileged backgrounds and in general, it's going to be easiest, ironically, for them to get various boxes checked, because they are the group that generally has the most amount of time because they have to worry less about working/making money and supporting themselves and others.

Honestly, I think this questions boils down to more than just age/maturity, it also involves economic background and experience. And that gets tricky - because none of us can control our family background. We can only play with the cards we're given and try our best to win with the hand we have. For example, I have to work during the summers, and so I made the decision to work as a CNA one summer to make money and get clinical experience instead of just volunteering (which I also do in a non clinical capacity).

I just think that like in all parts of an application it's an important to weigh the many factors that make the applicant unique. However, even as someone who doesn't come from a very privileged background, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on life experience as long as the person is aware of others' experiences and challenges. Having compassion is way more important.

 

[Promethean]

To clarify one thing...

I don't think that it is necessary for everyone who becomes a physician to have been homeless at one point. Being poor is not and never has been a virtue that should be aspired to by anyone. That is a trap that is used to make poor people feel a little better about their situation and rich people a little less guilty about theirs. Yes, having been very poor has given me a perspective that I can use... but not having had that perspective doesn't mean that someone will be a bad doctor. People with physician parents who haven't had a job before aren't bad people who don't deserve a chance to become physicians and they aren't incapable of compassion just by virtue of having suffered a little less than someone else.

Setting up objective markers for subjective character traits that may be desirable in a medical school applicant is unlikely to be a successful strategy.

 

[ready2go2]

a lot of undergrads aren't really ready even when they graduate.

That's an interesting statement. I mean what is the metric for determining readiness? Becoming a doctor is a big commitment, do you think majority of 20-something year olds are able to properly gauge the exact moment in their lives that they are "ready"? Or do they need someone (ADCOMS etc) to look at their resume and life experiences and say hey you're ready/not ready! Are the 60% of applicants who don't get in every year "not ready" or is there just not enough space or a combo of both?

 

[aldol16]

OP, I think that it's better for anyone thinking about graduate and/or professional school to have a year or more of "real world experience" under their belts before going off to those schools. By the time you finish those programs, you'll be in your late twenties if not early thirties. If you're in medicine, you'll have a few more years of residency training before you're off in the "real world" on your own. Don't you think it's absurd to have somebody in his or her early thirties who has never negotiated a salary and never received a real salary (at least until residency)? I think it's insane.

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

Isnt there some 19 year old now in HMS?
also. ****. No.

 

[aldol16]

That's an interesting statement. I mean what is the metric for determining readiness? Becoming a doctor is a big commitment, do you think majority of 20-something year olds are able to properly gauge the exact moment in their lives that they are "ready"? Or do they need someone (ADCOMS etc) to look at their resume and life experiences and say hey you're ready/not ready! Are the 60% of applicants who don't get in every year "not ready" or is there just not enough space or a combo of both?

I think many undergraduates graduate without having given much in-depth thought about their chosen professions, whether that's law, medicine, or otherwise. Many people go into medicine because they've always been told that they are smart and smart people become doctors. Many don't think of it past that because by this point, it's all they've ever been told and all their studies have been preparing them for this.

 

[piii]

Thanks to everyone for the insightful comments!

A couple of guys who sit near me were talking about how it might be interesting to get a part time job over the summer, just for a week or two, to find out what it is like to have one. Both are from affluent backgrounds and had literally never worked for an employer even one day in their lives. They've never not known how the rent would get paid, or what it is like to go without eating for a couple of days because there is no food and no money to buy any, or how it feels to wear shoes with holes in them in the winter. There are challenges that many of their patients will experience that they cannot even imagine.

This is what would the profession would ultimately want to avoid. But I agree, objective admissions standards would be incredibly difficult to implement.

 

[piii]

OP, I think that it's better for anyone thinking about graduate and/or professional school to have a year or more of "real world experience" under their belts before going off to those schools. By the time you finish those programs, you'll be in your late twenties if not early thirties. If you're in medicine, you'll have a few more years of residency training before you're off in the "real world" on your own. Don't you think it's absurd to have somebody in his or her early thirties who has never negotiated a salary and never received a real salary (at least until residency)? I think it's insane.

Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.

 

[tessellations]

That's an interesting statement. I mean what is the metric for determining readiness? Becoming a doctor is a big commitment, do you think majority of 20-something year olds are able to properly gauge the exact moment in their lives that they are "ready"? Or do they need someone (ADCOMS etc) to look at their resume and life experiences and say hey you're ready/not ready! Are the 60% of applicants who don't get in every year "not ready" or is there just not enough space or a combo of both?

To be fair, this is one doc's opinion and I'm not sure I totally agree with her. She herself was a nontrad who worked as a nurse for a few years before choosing to go the med school so that might be impacting her worldview.

I think that for the 60% of applicants who don't get in, there's likely a mix between dealing with the number of spots and readiness. You see time and time again uninformed people applying to schools where they don't fit into the 10-90th percentiles, but you also see people who probably would have been a great addition not get in because of the limited amount of space.

I agree with @aldol16 in that there are a lot of young premeds who have been keeping their heads down and chugging forward without taking time to stop and look around at other paths available to them. Like in all things in life, there are pros and cons to that.

I don't think anyone can really decide who's truly ready or not, since in many ways it's such a personal thing that we ourselves may not even know the answer to. But ADCOMS will always have to make these decisions, so it's something we have to keep in mind when we apply.

 

[lpp06]

This is certainly an interesting idea to spark conversation.

As a non trad myself, my additional years have proven to strengthen my desire to pursue medicine and have given me a greater appreciation for the profession.

But that's not going to be the case for everyone.

This is the challenge and blessing an adcom has - selecting a class with diverse experiences, personalities and motivations to produce a class that fits their mission. If you restrict certain age groups and demographics, you eliminate a section of the population that has something to share with their class. I am excited at the prospect of studying medicine with students who came straight from undergrad and are laser focused.

 

[Sardinia]

I read a WSJ article awhile back reporting that notable business schools were selecting candidates off their job portfolio when it came to accepting students into their MBA program.

The implications were two fold. First of all, certain candidates came from silver spoon families. Think sons or daughters of high volume Chinese companies which will have a hold on the market for years to come. This opens up the opportunity for the schools to broaden their relationship into business and potentially some high end donations. Second of all, the candidates who did have robust profiles will reliably be able to segue into a career after getting their education. This means that schools basically hedge/avert the risk of taking on students who may fail in their ability to convert an MBA education into an MBA job.

It's a point that got touched upon here by @piii that medical schools are also trying to figure out how to match into residency programs when their M4s start listing their most desired specialties and locations. When residency programs look at candidates from notable medical schools with a solid Step 1, high honors, and strong class rankings then they begin to ask themselves, "Is this someone I can work with? Do they understand what it means to be a team player? Have they worked in a situation where they had to perform or meet expectations?" A majority of them place so much emphasis on the Step 1 exam because it's the common denominator among all candidates. All candidates have to take the same Step 1 and its value in the decision making process is well known to all students who take the exam.

One program director stated that interviews are sometimes just used to determine whether the candidate in front of them is not a psychopath or a robot. For this reason, having a seasoned job history of being able to work in high pressure situations and still come out ahead is favorable. More information is better when making a hiring decision. In this case, medical schools may consider adopting a similar metric to make sure they accept students who can land into the residencies they desire. The medical schools are just as invested in their students into making a successful match happen for them at the end of four years. Therefore, it makes sense that we will arrive at a point where medical schools become more selective and choose students with grades and medical experience if it becomes a point that residencies begin to look at gap years as being a heavily valued metric. However, I don't believe that we've reached that point.

 

[Lucca]

Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.

I don't know why anyone would be in such a rush! But then again I'm the type of person who is taking a gap year so what do I know. I'm sure there are 19 year olds out there more mature and worldly than I am, some of them probably have better MCAT scores too! I don't know why any of them wouldn't want to sacrifice so much so early unless they had to though.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Ok I think it's clear what the consensus of the board is - that this would be a bad idea. I was leaning that way myself.

I still want to hear out the OP, though. Surely you've thought of some reasons for entertaining this idea. What are they?

Definitely not. Many people on this forum, myself included (and even the renowned @Goro if I recall correctly), support a mandatory year or two of public service (military, fire/rescue, something of that nature). A year or two of decent pay, great healthcare, good experience, and growth is not a negative.

It's also not something out of reach for poor people. Not having enough money was one of my reasons for joining the Navy.

 

[kb1900]

how bout a year required to go to an underserved area (paid, full time) before residency after finishing rotations?

dont really know how much a freshly graduated medical student is worth but at least with supervision, this would actually be a productive way for residencies to get more professional candidates.

Making anotehr checkbox prior to medical school really just makes the opportunity-cost/barrier to entry greater.

 

[Sardinia]

I'm surprised that no one really addressed the second part of the @piii suggestion which was financial independence.

This concept is laughable and I'm surprised that @Promethean never touched upon it consider they stated they experienced homelessness. A mandatory gap year is unnecessary for a large amount of students who come out with stellar GPAs and supported themselves throughout college by working 30-40 hours a week on top of a bevy of extracurriculars. This shows that they are focused, have strong time management skills, and are able to adapt in a high stress environment. What should be emphasized is the idea of performance.

If students are able to perform in their 4 years with their schedules fully loaded, then they shouldn't be required to have to take a year off. Many students who do start working in their gap year often come in with relatively inadequate work experience. More often than not they don't hear back from many places or start off on places that pay minimum wage. Minimum wage is not a minimum standard for any lifestyle anyone should have and corporations have tried to justify their McDonald's budget to the response of scrutiny. I have stated openly and repeatedly that I think pre-med type jobs are more frequently than not an exploitation of the students and that they should be given at least the $15 that's being dished out to a McDonald's employee.

In this case, forcing students to take extra time off when the amnesty period for their federal loans (stafford loans) or private loans begin to expire does more harm than good. If medical schools are looking for a rigorous pre-selection process then they can facilitate that through their post-bac/SMP programs. The current market that many gap year pre-meds are looking at is largely unfriendly and is more than willing to utilize their passion for less than a double digit hourly salary. And yes, we can all tell them what a great experience and opportunity they are receiving. But I know when I was a graduate I wanted to take my life seriously and become financially independent. I didn't expect to live out of my car with my dress clothes hanging from the backseat door hangar because I wanted to be independent.

 

[efle]

I'm a good chunk of the way into my gap year and don't feel like I've learned/matured that much. But I also worked part time semesters, full time summers, and have been on my own with loans+scholarship for funding college. I think if people have already experienced stuff like renting an apartment, and paying their expenses with work and debt instead of parents, there isn't that much to be gained.

Living and traveling abroad for a semester honestly taught me a lot more. Plus it was awesome. I vote for mandatory semesters in Europe.

 

[aldol16]

I'm a good chunk of the way into my gap year and don't feel like I've learned/matured that much. But I also worked part time semesters, full time summers, and have been on my own with loans+scholarship for funding college. I think if people have already experienced stuff like renting an apartment, and paying their expenses with work and debt instead of parents, there isn't that much to be gained.

Living and traveling abroad for a semester honestly taught me a lot more. Plus it was awesome. I vote for mandatory semesters in Europe.

For many students like yourself who have already had to deal with financing your education and living in apartments, etc., taking a gap year to live in the real world may not give that much benefit. But even if you worked full-time over the summers and part-time during the school year, chances are that those "jobs" are more like internships and not so much employment. One works at those positions with a known start date and a known end date - both you and your bosses know when you're going to leave and so things like job security rarely come up. Now, if you were working at one or two companies during that whole time as a full employee, then my answer would be different.

 

[ancientblue]

Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.

There's a girl in my class that's 18 (at Yale). There is no chance you could pick her out unless she told you. Interestingly, research shows individuals in 6- or 7-year medical programs out of high school (start medical school at 20 or 21) have no significant difference in board scores or resident performance than their traditional classmates.

 

[bannie22]

The rest of the world seem to do just fine without wasting another 4 years of their life in college, much less another year of doing didilly squat.

But Im all for wasting the a year of the future generation of doctors if thats what they want to push for.

 

[Goro]

I'd like a requirement for some type of employment. Residency directors are noticing that more and more newly minted doctors have poor employment attitudes, because residency is literally the first work that they've had.

Prior to that, they're professional students. So they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!

How about requiring an applicant to have a full time job and being financially independent before applying?

Just curious.

 

[Doggo]

I'd like a requirement for some type of employment. Residency directors are noticing that more and more newly minted doctors have poor employment attitudes, because residency is literally the first work that they've had.

Prior to that, they're professional students. So they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!

I agree with this. Prior to my gap year I only had generic college student part time gigs (aka super flexible, let you take time off for tests, etc) that did not really prepare me for what it's like to work in the real world full time.

 

[Azete]

I'd like a requirement for some type of employment. Residency directors are noticing that more and more newly minted doctors have poor employment attitudes, because residency is literally the first work that they've had.

Prior to that, they're professional students. So they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!

This annoyed me the most in my previous career. You select these people out of hundreds of applicants, they have degrees from the top schools in the country, glowing recommendations from very well respected professors in the field.... and then they ask for a week off because their "parents invited them to Europe" or they're flabbergasted that we only have 2 days off for Christmas.

 

[Hospitalized]

This is essentially already an unwritten rule with the average matriculant age climbing. If you are traditional, you better have exceptional stats if you want to get in the first time around. If you're non-traditional, you can sacrifice a little on stats for more in the life experience department.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[hungrybox]

they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!

The reason they're asking is because they aren't sure what the rules are. When did asking questions become a bad thing? Just tell them what the rules are.

Not sure what the big issue is, to be honest.

 

[bananafish94]

I think that premed students have enough on their plate as is. Although I did work throughout college and found it to be an absolutely positive experience.

That being said, I suspect that in the coming years it will become less and less common for people to apply right out of college as they find themselves unable to compete with the experiences that others can cultivate with two or three years of healthcare and real-world experience after college.