- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 3
I say they missed out on quite a few life experiences that come with years.
But thats just me.
But thats just me.
Age
- Thread starter scrubedin
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
IMO, it's not that big a deal.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 7
Thing is ... alot of the "young" people in college and who matriculate into medical school... have always been young.. due to an event in childhood. They may have skipped kindergarden or just simply started school early.
The only life experience they missed out on was nap time
And if you're trying to say that, as a result, they are not ready for med. school ... or the workload... or the social scene (or lack thereof):
http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/sum2005.pdf
Data would show otherwise... since, however debatable, the MCAT is "supposed" to determine how well you do in medical school... I know it's a bit of a stretch but the data shows that according to the AAMC, they may be just as, if not, better able to handle medical school than older students.
Exactly. Experiences do not have numbers attached to them. We all know our share of 20- and 30-somethings who act much younger, and some of them are applying to medical school. A lot of sub-20-year-olds are socially inept too.
But why should mature and motivated younger applicants be punished for their hard work and achievements? They may not have some of the experiences of traditional applicants, but they have had experiences nonetheless. They have risen to incredible challenges. We all have experiences. One grossly oversimplifies in saying that the additional two or three years' worth of "life experiences" (which are unique to the individual and his or her circumstances, background, etc., yet supposedly there is a minimum age for one to have them) makes the difference between a well-qualified applicant and an applicant who is apparently "lacking in life experiences."
