2008-2009 UMass Secondary Application Thread

[rowdy411]

---

Members don't see this ad.

One other important note (sorry for so many posts but I'm not going into work today d/t snow) is that because UMass is a state school, they cannot over-enroll. This has huge ramifications: they need to ensure that the class is diverse (ethically and socioeconomically) so they probably accept qualified students from diverse backgrounds in the first few waves, then fill in their class with their target demographics as the season rolls on. Fun times for sure, but I guess we'll see how it goes! 😎

 

[thompa]

Thank you Raraxavis, JKA, virusgirl, rowdy, thailandluv, and everyone else who weighed in with their opinion on my: To Retake or Not to Retake? that was my question.

I have been mulling over your replies and discussing with my premed advisor the last several days, and have decided not to retake the MCATs. Not because I have agreed with you that a 35 should be good enough. As anyone from any industry will tell you, moving another standard deviation away from the mean in the positive direction is always a worthy goal. However, it was envirodoc's "limited resources" argument as well as a new job offer that sealed the deal for me. I just took a new position (not the Broad) where I'm basically going to be heading up the company's small molecule program, and I'd like to devote my resources to that. Not to mention it will be a nice feather to stick in my hat, as it were. I know I could improve my score on the MCAT, which sounds hubristic, but really isn't. However, I think this new research opportunity will yield more fruit both for me and (maybe) society than a better score on my MCATs.

On a related note, you guys are all awesome and it is my fervant hope that I get to be classmates with some/all of you come this fall. Thanks again!

 

[scrubslover]

Snow days = slow days, but I'm at work anyway... yuck.

Thompa - CONGRATULATIONS! That's a really impressive position. Good luck and I'm glad you're not going to retake the MCAT.

 

[raraxavis]

A question for you all to ponder... it's pretty clear that UMass accepts the rock stars early, and we average folk wait to be accepted later in the season as the aforementioned rock stars accept seats at other schools. Given the state of the economy right now, do you think that very competitive applicants will be more inclined to attend their state school, or do you think they'll still go to Harvard and Hopkins?

I know that regardless of the economy, UMass will almost always be the better deal, but I'm wondering if poor financial prospects will have any impact upon people's decisions.

Thoughts? Hypotheses? Inklings? Linguini, you come to mind as someone who has done spectacularly well in terms of getting some fantastic acceptances -- I'm especially curious as to your opinion!

I was wondering this too, and hoping that maybe those rock stars will be going into neurosurgery anyway, and therefore not care too much about the heavy tuition of the private schools.

It's a bigger consideration I think for people like me who intend to go into primary care (and possibly rural, at that), where that making money thing doesn't really happen.

I guess it's a pretty big consideration for everyone though, and I'm just hoping at this point that umass might keep all its rockstars and then base the rest of its acceptances on who they find on this thread (clearly, we are the creme de la umass devotees). 🙂

 

[rowdy411]

Thank you Raraxavis, JKA, virusgirl, rowdy, thailandluv, and everyone else who weighed in with their opinion on my: To Retake or Not to Retake? that was my question.

I have been mulling over your replies and discussing with my premed advisor the last several days, and have decided not to retake the MCATs. Not because I have agreed with you that a 35 should be good enough. As anyone from any industry will tell you, moving another standard deviation away from the mean in the positive direction is always a worthy goal. However, it was envirodoc's "limited resources" argument as well as a new job offer that sealed the deal for me. I just took a new position (not the Broad) where I'm basically going to be heading up the company's small molecule program, and I'd like to devote my resources to that. Not to mention it will be a nice feather to stick in my hat, as it were. I know I could improve my score on the MCAT, which sounds hubristic, but really isn't. However, I think this new research opportunity will yield more fruit both for me and (maybe) society than a better score on my MCATs.

On a related note, you guys are all awesome and it is my fervant hope that I get to be classmates with some/all of you come this fall. Thanks again!

thompa- good for you! Sounds like a great plan and I'm glad you're not taking the MCAT again! A 35 is impressive and there's no need to do it, and focusing on other ways to improve your application is a huge step! good for you and let us know how it turns out!

 

[raraxavis]

I just took a new position (not the Broad) where I'm basically going to be heading up the company's small molecule program,

Wow, congrats, that sounds like an amazing position! Good luck with it 🙂

 

[thompa]

Snow day are amazing. I think I can honestly say that this is the first one I've had since high school.

I'm pretty excited about the new job. I was pretty blown away by the offer, so I need to kick some ass while I'm there to make sure I live up to it. And yes, the April acceptances should most definitely have a strong bias towards those of us on this board. We obviously are all rather enamored of this institution.

Also...you guys aren't the only ones relieved I'm not taking the MCATs again. 🙂

 

[virusgirl]

I just took a new position (not the Broad) where I'm basically going to be heading up the company's small molecule program, and I'd like to devote my resources to that.

You stink, Thompa! I was so looking forward to having a fellow SDN-er join the ranks of the Broadies.

In all seriousness, congrats on the new job!

 

[virusgirl]

I was wondering this too, and hoping that maybe those rock stars will be going into neurosurgery anyway, and therefore not care too much about the heavy tuition of the private schools.

It's a bigger consideration I think for people like me who intend to go into primary care (and possibly rural, at that), where that making money thing doesn't really happen.

I guess it's a pretty big consideration for everyone though, and I'm just hoping at this point that umass might keep all its rockstars and then base the rest of its acceptances on who they find on this thread (clearly, we are the creme de la umass devotees). 🙂

We are in the same boat. Obviously my mind could (and likely will) change once I actually start doing rotations, but right now I'm really interested in ID. Peds and OB/GYN are also in contention. Definitely not the highest paying specialties!

 

[thompa]

Not to totally change topics here...but did anyone else see the two articles on the Drudge Report today about a fertility clinic in LA that is now offering its paying customers the ability to choose their children's eye color, hair color, and gender?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html

The Wall Street Journal article is particularly well written. I'm curious what you all think about this. I've been telling people for a while now that genetic engineering is the wave of the future, and will likely be to the 21st century what the pharmaceutical revolution was to the 20th. Not to mention that targeted manipulation of our genome has the power to fundamentally alter the definition of what it means to be human. What are your views on this?

 

[jka]

I was wondering this too, and hoping that maybe those rock stars will be going into neurosurgery anyway, and therefore not care too much about the heavy tuition of the private schools.

It's a bigger consideration I think for people like me who intend to go into primary care (and possibly rural, at that), where that making money thing doesn't really happen.

I guess it's a pretty big consideration for everyone though, and I'm just hoping at this point that umass might keep all its rockstars and then base the rest of its acceptances on who they find on this thread (clearly, we are the creme de la umass devotees). 🙂

Yes we are the creme de la umass devotees!

 

[virusgirl]

I can't immediately come up with a logical reason as to why it makes me nervous, but it does. There is something creepy about people manifesting their cosmetic biases in the phenotypes of their children.

To be honest, I sometimes wonder if we take genetic testing even for for medical diseases too far. In my bioethics class, we read Peter Singer, who makes a case for euthanasia for "defective" infants (his choice of words, not mine). We also read a response to Singer written by a woman with spina bifida, who went on to become a successful attorney specializing in advocacy for the disabled -- she said that no one but her could judge the extent of her suffering as a result of her disease, and that no one but her was qualified to make a judgement call as to the value of her life. While this isn't related to genetic testing/engineering specifically, it does make me wonder if it's a good idea to test for diseases/select embryos on the basis of likelihood to have a genetic condition. Having a genetic disease does not necessarily mean that the individual will suffer or be unhappy later in life.

Ultimately, I have a gut feeling that genetic diversity is a good thing and that we shouldn't mess around with it too much.

 

[jka]

Not to totally change topics here...but did anyone else see the two articles on the Drudge Report today about a fertility clinic in LA that is now offering its paying customers the ability to choose their children's eye color, hair color, and gender?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html

The Wall Street Journal article is particularly well written. I'm curious what you all think about this. I've been telling people for a while now that genetic engineering is the wave of the future, and will likely be to the 21st century what the pharmaceutical revolution was to the 20th. Not to mention that targeted manipulation of our genome has the power to fundamentally alter the definition of what it means to be human. What are your views on this?

I personally think this is taking it too far, but I don't have an entirely solid ethical or biological reason to back my opinion up. I think selecting embryos based on whether or not they have a heritable disease is one thing. My reaction is mostly emotional, though, not rational. I grew up in CA, and my dad is a plastic surgeon, so I have had my fill of objectification and am even more disturbed by the objectification of children.

 

[jka]

I can't immediately come up with a logical reason as to why it makes me nervous, but it does. There is something creepy about people manifesting their cosmetic biases in the phenotypes of their children.

To be honest, I sometimes wonder if we take genetic testing even for for medical diseases too far. In my bioethics class, we read Peter Singer, who makes a case for euthanasia for "defective" infants (his choice of words, not mine). We also read a response to Singer written by a woman with spina bifida, who went on to become a successful attorney specializing in advocacy for the disabled -- she said that no one but her could judge the extent of her suffering as a result of her disease, and that no one but her was qualified to make a judgement call as to the value of her life. While this isn't related to genetic testing/engineering specifically, it does make me wonder if it's a good idea to test for diseases/select embryos on the basis of likelihood to have a genetic condition. Having a genetic disease does not necessarily mean that the individual will suffer or be unhappy later in life.

Ultimately, I have a gut feeling that genetic diversity is a good thing and that we shouldn't mess around with it too much.

A part of me is also hesitant about the medical disease genetic testing as well. My brother is disabled, and I completely agree with woman with spina bifida. The idea of the defective infant is of course disgusting regardless of any condition they might have. I can understand, however, the argument of preserving the healthiest embryo. And since our society has made the decision that discarding embryos for other reasons is fine, then you can't argue against discarding them for medical reasons.

 

[thompa]

I can't immediately come up with a logical reason as to why it makes me nervous, but it does.

Perhaps I can supply you with one: it removes the choice from the child whose looks are being decided. In this day and age we can all go buy hair dye and colored contacts if we want to change our eye color or hair color. This is fine because it's our choice. To have someone else decide that you should dye your hair a different color and wear colored contacts, and the power to enforce that decision, would be an outrage in our society. But because it's an embryo, no choice except the parents' can be made. Thus the creepiness of having another person decide the fate of something so fundamental to our own personal identies; our appearance.

But I have to play devil's advocate here too. While your story about the woman with spinal bifida is poignant and important, consider the larger story. I would say it is likely that the percentage of people with spinal bifida who go on to become successful attorneys is lower than that of certain other subgroups...for example, middle to upper class americans who fit society's standard definition of beauty. Parents, since there have been parents, have always been concerned with giving their children as many advantages possible. Deciding to ensure their birth free from genetic diseases, or even ensuring their physical beauty, falls within that normal parental urge.

Then what happens a little further down the road, when say, genes connected with athletic ability or intelligence become manipulatable? Of course, we all know where this road leads. To Gattaca or Brave New World. An outcome we can all surely agree is not very desirable.

So what do we do, as the group of future physicians who will likely be midwives to this coming genetic revolution? It seems unlikely that we can ban the research. The knowledge will come, so the question seems to be how do we usher it in responsibly?

 

[envirodoc]

Perhaps I can supply you with one: it removes the choice from the child whose looks are being decided. In this day and age we can all go buy hair dye and colored contacts if we want to change our eye color or hair color. This is fine because it's our choice. To have someone else decide that you should dye your hair a different color and wear colored contacts, and the power to enforce that decision, would be an outrage in our society. But because it's an embryo, no choice except the parents' can be made. Thus the creepiness of having another person decide the fate of something so fundamental to our own personal identies; our appearance.

The child has no choice when it comes to their genetics to begin with. There also is no choice in terms of who your parents are... All this technology does is introduce some choice into what has previously always been a semi-random process - reproduction. Semi-random because the actual genes themselves and crossing over etc is random, but selecting your mate is not all that random and has been subject to evolutionary and cultural pressures for ages(think "She's got the three things that really matter in a wife," everyone said: "breeding, brains, and beauty." - bonus points to name the movie/director without the help of google).

My concerns are less for people using the technology than for what society decides to do with it.

The banning/restriction sentiment is the gut reaction most people have - and it's pretty easy to imagine a nightmare scenario…

But I think it is more challenging to imagine an idealistic scenario where this technology improves the human race… because really, it is a novel human adaptation to reproduction… with evolutionary implications.

We know what the advocates of this technology see as the benefits, as well as what the detractors see as the risks, but can anyone think of a way society could structure this so it works out for the maximum benefit with least of those undesirable consequences?

 

[thompa]

The child has no choice when it comes to their genetics to begin with. There also is no choice in terms of who your parents are... All this technology does is introduce some choice into what has previously always been a semi-random process - reproduction. Semi-random because the actual genes themselves and crossing over etc is random, but selecting your mate is not all that random and has been subject to evolutionary and cultural pressures for ages(think "She's got the three things that really matter in a wife," everyone said: "breeding, brains, and beauty." - bonus points to name the movie/director without the help of google).

Agreed. Mate selection has never been random, so in many ways this technology is just an extension of what we've already been doing for a very long time, only with far greater precision.

My concerns are less for people using the technology than for what society decides to do with it.

The banning/restriction sentiment is the gut reaction most people have - and it's pretty easy to imagine a nightmare scenario…

But I think it is more challenging to imagine an idealistic scenario where this technology improves the human race… because really, it is a novel human adaptation to reproduction… with evolutionary implications.

We know what the advocates of this technology see as the benefits, as well as what the detractors see as the risks, but can anyone think of a way society could structure this so it works out for the maximum benefit with least of those undesirable consequences?

Well in order to take a stab at that we need to first define what consequences are desirable and which are not. In the desirable category we should place the elimination of genetic diseases; huntingtons, down's syndrome, etc. Those are the easy ones, if there is such a thing in this argument. What else then goes in this category? We all know that longevity has a genetic component, most centenarians have a centenarian in their family history. With proper genetic tweaking we could effectively drastically improve the life expectancy for most people. Who doesn't want to live longer? Let's put this in our "desirable consequences" category.

What about the "negative consequences" category? We know we don't want to become a Huxleyian Brave New World, so that means major government regulation of this technology is out of the question. The minute the government starts making decisions on who can or can't get what genetic "upgrades" is the day the goverment takes control of our genetic future. Bad consequence. So that means free market all the way right? I don't think so either. Free market reign would give unfettered access to any genetic "upgrade" as long as the buyer could afford it. Then we get into the genetic "haves" and "have-nots" which could really turn into a terrible vicious circle. Think Gattaca. This would also be an "undesirable consequence".

So how do we thread between these two paths? Clearly this technology must be available to as many people as possible, which sounds like a certain amount of goverment regulation. But total goverment control would amount to a genetic communism that I can scarcely contemplate. So how far do we regulate? Genetic manipulation for disease but not for cosmetics? What happens if it turns out that a gene closely related to, say, diabetes also happens to be closely linked to height? What happens when a particular gene manipulation is both cosmetic and disease related? I think these choices should, at some level, be left to the parent. After all, it is their child. Shouldn't they have some, or even most, control over what kind of child they bring into the world? Just because we, as a species, have never had this level of control before doesn't mean that we can't make responsible decisions about how to execute that new control on an individual basis. So there would have to be a lot of education that goes along with making these decisions.

So I suppose my stab at an "ideal" plan would be this: minimal government control, limited to prohibiting genetic manipulation for cosmetic purposes alone. Also, some goverment regulation of the industry that allows the disadvantaged and poor to recieve access to this technology. Decisions about genetic manipulation that are both cosmetic and disease related would be left to the parents, and their ability to pay for such things in a fairly regulated market. Thirdly, I would like to see a mandatory educational program that all parents would have to take before being allowed to make these decisions. However, the cost and viability of such a program make it the least likely to occur. But hey, we're talking ideal right?

 

[virusgirl]

Perhaps I can supply you with one: it removes the choice from the child whose looks are being decided. In this day and age we can all go buy hair dye and colored contacts if we want to change our eye color or hair color. This is fine because it's our choice. To have someone else decide that you should dye your hair a different color and wear colored contacts, and the power to enforce that decision, would be an outrage in our society. But because it's an embryo, no choice except the parents' can be made. Thus the creepiness of having another person decide the fate of something so fundamental to our own personal identies; our appearance.

But I have to play devil's advocate here too. While your story about the woman with spinal bifida is poignant and important, consider the larger story. I would say it is likely that the percentage of people with spinal bifida who go on to become successful attorneys is lower than that of certain other subgroups...for example, middle to upper class americans who fit society's standard definition of beauty. Parents, since there have been parents, have always been concerned with giving their children as many advantages possible. Deciding to ensure their birth free from genetic diseases, or even ensuring their physical beauty, falls within that normal parental urge.

Then what happens a little further down the road, when say, genes connected with athletic ability or intelligence become manipulatable? Of course, we all know where this road leads. To Gattaca or Brave New World. An outcome we can all surely agree is not very desirable.

So what do we do, as the group of future physicians who will likely be midwives to this coming genetic revolution? It seems unlikely that we can ban the research. The knowledge will come, so the question seems to be how do we usher it in responsibly?

Actually, I don't think removing the choice from the child is the problem. If you believe that deciding on hair or eye color is a decision that the parents make for their child's betterment -- which seems to be your argument in the second paragraph -- well, parents make lots of decisions for their children. That's what being a parent is all about. You act in the best interest of the child when an issue arises before the child is old enough to make their own rational decision. And it's not as if parents making cosmetic decisions for their kids is anything new; while I'm aware that there is some medical evidence to show that circumcision is "healthier," I think the majority of parents elect to circumcise their sons for cultural/social reasons. Yet we as a society don't seem to take issue with that parental decision. (this is not to say I'm an advocate of cosmetic genetic manipulation, I'm just saying that I don't think disenfranchisement of the individual child is the main reason I'm opposed)

It is entirely possible that the woman with spina bifida is unusual case, but my point is that there is no way for you -- or me, or anyone else -- to know. There's really no way to evaluate the comfort of someone else's life; the best we can do is project our own values and biases onto others, which is almost always a bad idea. You give the example of people who don't fit the standard cultural definition of beauty, but in even making that argument you're projecting a set of values onto others: your belief that physical ugliness is a detriment in some way. Maybe it is for you (I'm not trying to say that you're ugly Thompa! I am being hypothetical), but you can't really say definitively that it is for others.

I guess my issue with genetic testing -- certainly cosmetic, and to a certain extent medical as well -- is that it assumes that all involved individuals share a common set of values (mobility, physical attractiveness, etc), which is certainly not the case.

 

[thompa]

Actually, I don't think removing the choice from the child is the problem. If you believe that deciding on hair or eye color is a decision that the parents make for their child's betterment -- which seems to be your argument in the second paragraph -- well, parents make lots of decisions for their children. That's what being a parent is all about. You act in the best interest of the child when an issue arises before the child is old enough to make their own rational decision. And it's not as if parents making cosmetic decisions for their kids is anything new; while I'm aware that there is some medical evidence to show that circumcision is "healthier," I think the majority of parents elect to circumcise their sons for cultural/social reasons. Yet we as a society don't seem to take issue with that parental decision.

Agreed. I had this thought after I wrote the post you quoted. More on this below.

It is entirely possible that the woman with spina bifida is unusual case, but my point is that there is no way for you -- or me, or anyone else -- to know. There's really no way to evaluate the comfort of someone else's life; the best we can do is project our own values and biases onto others, which is almost always a bad idea. You give the example of people who don't fit the standard cultural definition of beauty, but in even making that argument you're projecting a set of values onto others: your belief that physical ugliness is a detriment in some way. Maybe it is for you (I'm not trying to say that you're ugly Thompa! I am being hypothetical), but you can't really say definitively that it is for others.

Two things: One being that every choice a parent makes for their child projects a set of values onto another; that other being their child. So I can't agree with you that such a thing, generally, is "almost always a bad idea". You and I, for example, had our parents' values projected onto us for a very long time, and have turned out to be relatively well-adjusted. (My affinity for Star Trek being a clear deviation from well-adjusted, but harmless nonetheless). Also, I would point out that as future physicians we will be very much in charge of evaluating the comfort of someone else's life when we decide how much and what kind of pain medication to deal out. Or whether we believe a patient is actually in pain at all or just exhibiting drug-seeking behavior.

The other thing is one of statistics. Projecting or not, we do have a cultural idea of beauty. Every culture does. I think most of us can agree that people who more closely fit that ideal of beauty (thin, symmetrical facial features, etc.) tend to be more financially successful in life. My point being that there is an argument to be made for cosmetic genetic manipulation from the perspective of the "betterment of the child". The obvious disclaimer being that financial success is not the only measure of success. Still, it is not a consideration to be lightly discarded.

I would point out, however, that the sentence in the movie after envirodoc's quotation states that the woman who had the "breeding, brains, and beauty" also "was incapable of love or tenderness or decency".

I guess my issue with genetic testing -- certainly cosmetic, and to a certain extent medical as well -- is that it assumes that all involved individuals share a common set of values (mobility, physical attractiveness, etc), which is certainly not the case.

I would agree, hence my argument in my other post that these decisions be left, mostly, to the parents. We are already expecting them to make most of these "enforced-value decisions", e.g. circumcision, and we have reason to assume that these decisions will be made with care and for the betterment of the child. Hence my opposition to large scale societal control over genetic manipulation with regard to reproduction.

 

[rowdy411]

Agreed. I had this thought after I wrote the post you quoted. More on this below.




Two things: One being that every choice a parent makes for their child projects a set of values onto another; that other being their child. So I can't agree with you that such a thing, generally, is "almost always a bad idea". You and I, for example, had our parents' values projected onto us for a very long time, and have turned out to be relatively well-adjusted. (My affinity for Star Trek being a clear deviation from well-adjusted, but harmless nonetheless). Also, I would point out that as future physicians we will be very much in charge of evaluating the comfort of someone else's life when we decide how much and what kind of pain medication to deal out. Or whether we believe a patient is actually in pain at all or just exhibiting drug-seeking behavior.

The other thing is one of statistics. Projecting or not, we do have a cultural idea of beauty. Every culture does. I think most of us can agree that people who more closely fit that ideal of beauty (thin, symmetrical facial features, etc.) tend to be more financially successful in life. My point being that there is an argument to be made for cosmetic genetic manipulation from the perspective of the "betterment of the child". The obvious disclaimer being that financial success is not the only measure of success. Still, it is not a consideration to be lightly discarded.

I would point out, however, that the sentence in the movie after envirodoc's quotation states that the woman who had the "breeding, brains, and beauty" also "was incapable of love or tenderness or decency".



I would agree, hence my argument in my other post that these decisions be left, mostly, to the parents. We are already expecting them to make most of these "enforced-value decisions", e.g. circumcision, and we have reason to assume that these decisions will be made with care and for the betterment of the child. Hence my opposition to large scale societal control over genetic manipulation with regard to reproduction.

Oh you socialist! Yeah, my parents genetically engineered me to be the most beautiful man ever to exist, but then, in a freak lab accident, the tech's hands slipped and, well, here I am!!!

 

[linguini]

A question for you all to ponder... it's pretty clear that UMass accepts the rock stars early, and we average folk wait to be accepted later in the season as the aforementioned rock stars accept seats at other schools. Given the state of the economy right now, do you think that very competitive applicants will be more inclined to attend their state school, or do you think they'll still go to Harvard and Hopkins?

I know that regardless of the economy, UMass will almost always be the better deal, but I'm wondering if poor financial prospects will have any impact upon people's decisions.

Thoughts? Hypotheses? Inklings? Linguini, you come to mind as someone who has done spectacularly well in terms of getting some fantastic acceptances -- I'm especially curious as to your opinion!

Aww thanks virusgirl, I'm flattered! I can only speak for myself here. The current economic situation hasn't really affected my likelihood of attending UMass. As someone else mentioned, graduate student loans are stable despite the downward turn. I am hopeful that the economy will recover by the time we leave residency and have to pay the chunk of our student loans back. That being said, the ridiculously high cost of private medical school, regardless of today's economic climate, definitely increases how likely I am to attend UMass.

While the COA of UMass is definitely pulling me in that direction, the location (Worcester 👎) and focus on primary care (I will probably specialize, although I'm not certain yet) are deterrents for me. I've lived in MA my entire life (with the exception of a nearby state for undergrad) and I'm itching to get out for a while and see another part of the country. But I'm definitely going to attend Second Look to get a better feel for the area, the students, and the school in general. Hope to see some of you there!

 

[scrubslover]

But I'm definitely going to attend Second Look to get a better feel for the area, the students, and the school in general. Hope to see some of you there!

Speaking of Second Look...

For those of you planning to attend, it says we can bring up to 3 guests... are you guys actually planning on bringing guests? I really want to get a feel for my potential classmates, and I'm not sure if me bringing my parents/boyfriend/random hitchiker I met on the way there would be conducive to that....

Thoughts?

 

[rowdy411]

Is anyone else still freaking out? Let's get some support going in here again!

😱

 

[umass_md]

Is anyone else still freaking out? Let's get some support going in here again!

😱

totally freaking out!!!!!!!!!!! i can't wait to hear good news from umass. oh, let it be soon. please please please😍

 

[rowdy411]

totally freaking out!!!!!!!!!!! i can't wait to hear good news from umass. oh, let it be soon. please please please😍

fantastic! I know it's pretty obvious that there are loads of people waiting to hear from loads of schools, but it's always nice to commiserate!

 

[envirodoc]

Oh yeah I've been freaking since December... but resigned myself to do the real freak out dance in mid-April. Don't think I'll get anything done at work then...

I would agree, hence my argument in my other post that these decisions be left, mostly, to the parents. We are already expecting them to make most of these "enforced-value decisions", e.g. circumcision, and we have reason to assume that these decisions will be made with care and for the betterment of the child. Hence my opposition to large scale societal control over genetic manipulation with regard to reproduction.

Let's see, there is the Thompa version of beauty and the ideal use of this technology:

And then there is the parents who are dog-lovers use of this:

I think parental controlled speciation could get interesting...

 

[raraxavis]

Is anyone else still freaking out? Let's get some support going in here again!

😱

Me, me!! I'm still freaking out! Especially since those people got accepted on a Tuesday... now I'm constantly looking over my shoulder for possible umass updates lurking at every turn.

I understand they probably did get accepted on the Friday before and were simply notified late, but if that can happen... ANYTHING CAN.

Will someone remind me of the time line here? Acceptances in... late March? Early April? Then rejections? Then waitlists? Other way around?

PS - I love when Massachusetts gets a snow day and the umass forum is totally bumpin'. Even if I'm still at work way down here in the "south".

 

[rowdy411]

Me, me!! I'm still freaking out! Especially since those people got accepted on a Tuesday... now I'm constantly looking over my shoulder for possible umass updates lurking at every turn.

I understand they probably did get accepted on the Friday before and were simply notified late, but if that can happen... ANYTHING CAN.

Will someone remind me of the time line here? Acceptances in... late March? Early April? Then rejections? Then waitlists? Other way around?

PS - I love when Massachusetts gets a snow day and the umass forum is totally bumpin'. Even if I'm still at work way down here in the "south".

I second that notion... did UMass already reject a ton of people, or have they not rejected anyone yet???

 

[raraxavis]

I second that notion... did UMass already reject a ton of people, or have they not rejected anyone yet???

I remember they rejected one SDNer in the winter last year (not a happy SDNer), but I haven't heard of any rejections at all this year. I think they tend not to reject until later, with a couple exceptions.

 

[rowdy411]

I remember they rejected one SDNer in the winter last year (not a happy SDNer), but I haven't heard of any rejections at all this year. I think they tend not to reject until later, with a couple exceptions.

Yeah, that's what it seems like. I wonder if we're just all in limbo, or if those who have been rejected just aren't posting here (can't really blame them, I wouldn't either!)

 

[thompa]

Well played envirodoc, that was hilarious. Also, nice choice of Uma Thurman. She's fantastic.

I really don't think they send out many rejections before April. It seems they round out the acceptance offers after interview season is done (about 2 more weeks I believe), then build the waitlist, then notify the waitlistees, THEN reject the rest. I think the rejections don't usually start coming until late April, with most of the movement on the waitlist occurring in May.

 

[Steve16]

any interviewees recall:

1. The typical daily class schedule? all morning? all afternoon? scattered?
2. Are classes recorded? audio? visual?

Thanks,
S

 

[FatherOblivion]

any interviewees recall:

1. The typical daily class schedule? all morning? all afternoon? scattered?
2. Are classes recorded? audio? visual?

Thanks,
S

Class schedule varies from day to day, but it generally runs from 8 to 3. All classes are video recorded and can be streamed online. Currently MP3s are not distributed but it's in the works.

 

[PreMD86]

Just thought I'd let you guys know my friend let me know a few hrs ago she was accepted. She didn't mention when the acceptance came, but judging by her enthusiasm is was likely pretty fresh.

FatherOblivion is generally right in the sense that the school day is generally 8-3, but it's not filled with lectures. Generally we'll have about 3 lectures from 8 until 11 or 12, and then we'll have a couple hrs of lab. Wednesdays go from 1-4 (8-12 is allotted to your preceptorship, but you can do it whenver you want). Thursdays are 8-1, with PPS (patient, physician, society- which you'll hear lots about) from 2-4. Fridays are almost always 8-1.

As a side note, cherish what might very well have been the last snow day of your lives. Umass apparently is not familiar with the concept. On monday we only got a 1 hour delay, and one of the profs claimed it was the first delay in 15 years.

 

[HanginInThere]

FatherOblivion is generally right in the sense that the school day is generally 8-3, but it's not filled with lectures. Generally we'll have about 3 lectures from 8 until 11 or 12, and then we'll have a couple hrs of lab. Wednesdays go from 1-4 (8-12 is allotted to your preceptorship, but you can do it whenver you want). Thursdays are 8-1, with PPS (patient, physician, society- which you'll hear lots about) from 2-4. Fridays are almost always 8-1.

Tuesday afternoons are supposed to be free time too, although there have been enough exceptions to the rule this semester that it's easy to forget.

As a side note, cherish what might very well have been the last snow day of your lives. Umass apparently is not familiar with the concept. On monday we only got a 1 hour delay, and one of the profs claimed it was the first delay in 15 years.

What is this "snow day" you speak of?

 

[PreMD86]

Wow I just noticed how many times I used the word 'generally'. Renal is really frying my brain, generally. 🙂

 

[raraxavis]

Thanks current students!
You have no idea how much I just want to be you right now, renal or no renal. Generally.🙂

 

[PreMD86]

Thanks current students!
You have no idea how much I just want to be you right now, renal or no renal. Generally.🙂

Actually, if you read my posts from right around a year ago, you'll discover I have some idea. Believe it or not, in a couple months, most of you will be our future classmates.

 

[erawka]

Anyone interview from 12/16 or sometime around there?? I passed the two-month mark a few weeks ago and need some solidarity 🙁

For whatever reason I have high hopes for the next two days, though. Maybe some luck????

 

[rowdy411]

Anyone interview from 12/16 or sometime around there?? I passed the two-month mark a few weeks ago and need some solidarity 🙁

For whatever reason I have high hopes for the next two days, though. Maybe some luck????

I interviewed on 11/19 and am still waiting. I'm holding it together... barely!

Why the next two days?

 

[eleven eleven]

Anyone interview from 12/16 or sometime around there?? I passed the two-month mark a few weeks ago and need some solidarity 🙁

For whatever reason I have high hopes for the next two days, though. Maybe some luck????

I interviewed 12/10 and also haven't heard any news. 🙁

And yes, why do you have high hopes? I do, but I mean, c'mon, I've had high hopes since December, ha. Does anyone think there will be a slew of acceptances post-March 15th? I know quite a few people who are holding on to their state school acceptances until then, with no intention of matriculating, and hoping to get a good FA package out of the private schools to which they've been accepted.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking though ...

 

[umass_md]

Anyone interview from 12/16 or sometime around there?? I passed the two-month mark a few weeks ago and need some solidarity 🙁

For whatever reason I have high hopes for the next two days, though. Maybe some luck????

i'm hopeful for today and tomorrow, too, although i have no reason to be. it probably has something to do with the fact that i think about umass 90% of the day.

 

[hoyastudent09]

interviewed 12/17 and nada! keep the faith though, stay positive! we'll all be hanging out in the library soon :-D

 

[rowdy411]

we need an AA-like support group.

 

[scrubslover]

we need an AA-like support group.

There's only one remedy for this... Baseball season!

But hopefully by opening day, everyone will have been accepted anyway 🙂

 

[raraxavis]

Actually, if you read my posts from right around a year ago, you'll discover I have some idea. Believe it or not, in a couple months, most of you will be our future classmates.

Haha true, I guess you know exactly how we all feel.

And, pardon the stalking, but I actually did read all your posts from last year (I can only read this year's posts so many times, it was inevitable I would stumble upon last year's umass thread). I followed the drama of all of your waiting and waitlistings and eventual acceptances. It was pretty therapeutic, actually, to see how gracious everyone was even facing the possibly of not getting in, and how persistent waitlistees were sometimes rewarded.

 

[envirodoc]

Haha true, I guess you know exactly how we all feel.

And, pardon the stalking, but I actually did read all your posts from last year (I can only read this year's posts so many times, it was inevitable I would stumble upon last year's umass thread). I followed the drama of all of your waiting and waitlistings and eventual acceptances. It was pretty therapeutic, actually, to see how gracious everyone was even facing the possibly of not getting in, and how persistent waitlistees were sometimes rewarded.

oh last year, I only had to wait from 1/30 - 5/5 to get my rejection. 3 months total... I've almost waited that long this year and we still have another 1-2 months to wait!! aaaaaah...

I interviewed 12/16 this year - I saw some other posters from that day...were any of you there for the morning when we all waited around for like 30 minutes and then Brenda showed up and said we'll just go right to our interviews (Apparently due to the ice storm somehow)...

I was the one (redhead) who tried to make some conversation while we all nervously looked over our apps...


PS I remember you guys hangin in there and PreMD86! hope classes are going well!

 

[rowdy411]

SO many conflicting messages! Envirodoc, what are your stats like? This is all anonymous anyway, right? haha

good luck to everyone... we'll all get there! 🙂

 

[envirodoc]

My stats really depend on how you measure them….

If AMCAS reads them, then I got a 27P (2007) and then a 27R MCAT (2008) ugh AMCAS GPA is 3.16 Sci, 3.4 Culm.

If UMass Boston (where I graduated and did 70+ credits) reads them, then my GPA is 3.7 culm, honors/distinction/magna cum laude yadayada. Sci GPA is 3.5 or so.

The difference is due to my bombed out sophomore year at UMass Amherst.

Other than that, I've done a bunch of leadership positions, publications, actually paid my way through school, had a very close encounter with cancer… and am an accredited "Green Building Professional" (LEED AP for those who know about it) as well as certified Rape Crisis Counselor… and a bunch of other stuff that I won't bore all of you with. Oh, and I know the Chancellor at UMass Med due to my student activism when he was Chancellor at UMass (I like to think he liked me…😛)

Considering that I've been interviewed only at UMass after two years of applying (7 schools in 2007 -> 1 interview UMass, 18 schools in 2008 --> 2 pre-interview hold and 1 interview@umass), I think that last paragraph of non-stat information does not really matter much UNLESS your stats are good. Well, you knew that already.

As far as backup plans go, I have a good job that is non-medical and could stay here for a while before applying again. OR go and get an MS in Bioinformatics or a Caribbean MD. If I go the MS/work route, then I would take MCAT again...I am not crazy about special Master's programs and would rather just go to St. George's, to which I've already applied...

But I really hope I get into UMass! So we'll see in April/May - maybe I'll have a nice b-day present on May 16.

Do people think it would make a difference if I write a nice letter of interest to UMass (which I did not do last year) explaining how much I love them, and wanna have like, 10,000 of their babies?

 

[rowdy411]

My stats really depend on how you measure them….

If AMCAS reads them, then I got a 27P (2007) and then a 27R MCAT (2008) ugh AMCAS GPA is 3.16 Sci, 3.4 Culm.

If UMass Boston (where I graduated and did 70+ credits) reads them, then my GPA is 3.7 culm, honors/distinction/magna cum laude yadayada. Sci GPA is 3.5 or so.

The difference is due to my bombed out sophomore year at UMass Amherst.

Other than that, I've done a bunch of leadership positions, publications, actually paid my way through school, had a very close encounter with cancer… and am an accredited "Green Building Professional" (LEED AP for those who know about it) as well as certified Rape Crisis Counselor… and a bunch of other stuff that I won't bore all of you with. Oh, and I know the Chancellor at UMass Med due to my student activism when he was Chancellor at UMass (I like to think he liked me…😛)

Considering that I've been interviewed only at UMass after two years of applying (7 schools in 2007 -> 1 interview UMass, 18 schools in 2008 --> 2 pre-interview hold and 1 interview@umass), I think that last paragraph of non-stat information does not really matter much UNLESS your stats are good. Well, you knew that already.

As far as backup plans go, I have a good job that is non-medical and could stay here for a while before applying again. OR go and get an MS in Bioinformatics or a Caribbean MD. If I go the MS/work route, then I would take MCAT again...I am not crazy about special Master's programs and would rather just go to St. George's, to which I've already applied...

But I really hope I get into UMass! So we'll see in April/May - maybe I'll have a nice b-day present on May 16.

Do people think it would make a difference if I write a nice letter of interest to UMass (which I did not do last year) explaining how much I love them, and wanna have like, 10,000 of their babies?

Sounds like you'll be a great physician! I hope everything works out for you!