Bad LOR? How to find out? 2 invites then silence

[DulyNoted]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Quick intro: Good scores (>3.9 and >36), decent public university, pre-med committee with composite letter, 5 semesters research, 1 pub in IF 4.5 journal, lots of clinical exposure and volunteering, lots of travel, hobbies, bit older, etc. My application reflects an interest in academic medicine without going over the top, advisers said PS was among the best they've read, and so on.

Complete most places in early September (15 total, state schools and reaches). Like the title says, I received early invitations to Chicago and Vanderbilt and to my state school and have heard nothing since. I feel like I should have heard something else from some school by now. Am I wrong? I see that people complete around the same time as myself are getting interviews from about half of the places on which I'm waiting, while I've heard nothing in 5 weeks and have pretty much quit checking my email with any hope.

I'd be happy attending either of the schools at which I've interviewed and don't mean to whine. But each day I get more and more anxious that I might have gotten a single bad comment in an LOR that is scaring schools away.

Questions:
1) Does anyone know if Chicago screens LORs before interview invites? I know that Vandy does not.
2) How would you go about inquiring as to the quality of your letters from your pre-med committee? Mine takes the writers' privacy very seriously, as they should, and I doubt I'd get far even asking for the most general of information such as "Do I have a bad review by any of the 5?"

I apologize for this post. I know I should chill and that lots of people would be ecstatic to be in my shoes at this point. It just seems as if it'll all have been for nothing and I'll wind up re-applying next year if my paranoia is well founded. Thanks much.

 

[Dienekes]

Quick intro: Good scores (>3.9 and >36), decent public university, pre-med committee with composite letter, 5 semesters research, 1 pub in IF 4.5 journal, lots of clinical exposure and volunteering, lots of travel, hobbies, bit older, etc. My application reflects an interest in academic medicine without going over the top, advisers said PS was among the best they've read, and so on.

Complete most places in early September (15 total, state schools and reaches). Like the title says, I received early invitations to Chicago and Vanderbilt and to my state school and have heard nothing since. I feel like I should have heard something else from some school by now. Am I wrong? I see that people complete around the same time as myself are getting interviews from about half of the places on which I'm waiting, while I've heard nothing in 5 weeks and have pretty much quit checking my email with any hope.

I'd be happy attending either of the schools at which I've interviewed and don't mean to whine. But each day I get more and more anxious that I might have gotten a single bad comment in an LOR that is scaring schools away.

Questions:
1) Does anyone know if Chicago screens LORs before interview invites? I know that Vandy does not.
2) How would you go about inquiring as to the quality of your letters from your pre-med committee? Mine takes the writers' privacy very seriously, as they should, and I doubt I'd get far even asking for the most general of information such as "Do I have a bad review by any of the 5?"

I apologize for this post. I know I should chill and that lots of people would be ecstatic to be in my shoes at this point. It just seems as if it'll all have been for nothing and I'll wind up re-applying next year if my paranoia is well founded. Thanks much.

This is why I ask for multiple copies of my LORs (those the writer does not openly give me a copy of) in sealed envelopes, at least one of each more than what I need, and then open one of them to see what was written about me before submitting them. Play it like you will address and apply postage yourself to "save the person the trouble" and most people will be happy to oblige not realizing your real motives.

 

[drizzt3117]

Quick intro: Good scores (>3.9 and >36), decent public university, pre-med committee with composite letter, 5 semesters research, 1 pub in IF 4.5 journal, lots of clinical exposure and volunteering, lots of travel, hobbies, bit older, etc. My application reflects an interest in academic medicine without going over the top, advisers said PS was among the best they've read, and so on.

Complete most places in early September (15 total, state schools and reaches). Like the title says, I received early invitations to Chicago and Vanderbilt and to my state school and have heard nothing since. I feel like I should have heard something else from some school by now. Am I wrong? I see that people complete around the same time as myself are getting interviews from about half of the places on which I'm waiting, while I've heard nothing in 5 weeks and have pretty much quit checking my email with any hope.

I'd be happy attending either of the schools at which I've interviewed and don't mean to whine. But each day I get more and more anxious that I might have gotten a single bad comment in an LOR that is scaring schools away.

You haven't been complete that long. I would just wait a bit, if I had to guess, more invites will be coming soon. My brother applied with similar stats and completion date and his interviews were primarily after the first of the year with invites granted in November.

Questions:
1) Does anyone know if Chicago screens LORs before interview invites? I know that Vandy does not.

Yes, Pritzker does, while you are correct in saying that Vanderbilt does not.

2) How would you go about inquiring as to the quality of your letters from your pre-med committee? Mine takes the writers' privacy very seriously, as they should, and I doubt I'd get far even asking for the most general of information such as "Do I have a bad review by any of the 5?"

I apologize for this post. I know I should chill and that lots of people would be ecstatic to be in my shoes at this point. It just seems as if it'll all have been for nothing and I'll wind up re-applying next year if my paranoia is well founded. Thanks much.

Your premed advisor may be able to tell you in general terms how your recommendations were. In general, though, unless you really offended a writer, it's unlikely your recs are worse than lukewarm.

 

[drizzt3117]

This is why I ask for multiple copies of my LORs (those the writer does not openly give me a copy of) in sealed envelopes, at least one of each more than what I need, and then open one of them to see what was written about me before submitting them. Play it like you will address and apply postage yourself to "save the person the trouble" and most people will be happy to oblige not realizing your real motives.

Very ethical.

 

[DulyNoted]

This is why I ask for multiple copies of my LORs (those the writer does not openly give me a copy of) in sealed envelopes, at least one of each more than what I need, and then open one of them to see what was written about me before submitting them. Play it like you will address and apply postage yourself to "save the person the trouble" and most people will be happy to oblige not realizing your real motives.

A friend of mine does the same thing. Seems very shady and I'd not want to do that anyway. I'd just like to know if it happened to me and who I should avoid asking in the event I need to reapply.

Anyway, our committee makes this impossible by accepting the letters directly from the writers.

 

[Dienekes]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

 

[drizzt3117]

A friend of mine does the same thing. Seems very shady and I'd not want to do that anyway. I'd just like to know if it happened to me and who I should avoid asking in the event I need to reapply.

Anyway, our committee makes this impossible by accepting the letters directly from the writers.

If you really do need to reapply (which I would bet money against) you could call the schools and ask them if they could tell you what to improve. Obviously if they told you that your letters were weak, then you would know for sure. I think it would be easier to ask your PMA though.

 

[Dienekes]

A friend of mine does the same thing. Seems very shady and I'd not want to do that anyway. I'd just like to know if it happened to me and who I should avoid asking in the event I need to reapply.

Anyway, our committee makes this impossible by accepting the letters directly from the writers.

How is it "shady"? Technically once they hand them over to you, they are your property so you can do with them what you wish. You could use them for rolling papers for all they know. If they write something negative or equivocal about you then you should have a right to know about it.

That is why I am glad my school does not have a committee. Even if they did, I would simply wait until after I am graduated (I plan on doing an MPH anyhow...I would just do it before med school rather than during or after) to avoid having to use them since our premed advisor is worthless. Honestly I see no real point in a premed "committee".

 

[drizzt3117]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

I'm not saying that no one else does it, nor any of the other behaviors on your list, but just saying that the OP may want to take the fact that submitting a "confidential" LOR that is not confidential isn't ethical. One way to get around this may involve getting more LORs and asking your PMA to pick the best 3-5.

 

[Dienekes]

If you really do need to reapply (which I would bet money against) you could call the schools and ask them if they could tell you what to improve. Obviously if they told you that your letters were weak, then you would know for sure. I think it would be easier to ask your PMA though.

I think it would be easier to ask your PMA though.

Assuming that they both:
A. give a ****
B. are trustworthy and not prone to lying

 

[DulyNoted]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your advice. Part of me wishes I had asked the writers directly for a copy, but I would not stoop to misleading them in the way you suggest and don't do any of the other things you mentioned.

(The volunteer hours may be an exception, I guess. Many times I'd wished I was some place else, but I can't imagine anyone who hasn't felt that way at one time or another.)

Anyway..

 

[Dienekes]

I'm not saying that no one else does it, nor any of the other behaviors on your list, but just saying that the OP may want to take the fact that submitting a "confidential" LOR that is not confidential isn't ethical. One way to get around this may involve getting more LORs and asking your PMA to pick the best 3-5.

It's only unethical if you get caught. Welcome to Situational Ethics 101...

 

[Dienekes]

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your advice. Part of me wishes I had asked the writers directly for a copy, but I would not stoop to misleading them in the way you suggest and don't do any of the other things you mentioned.

(The volunteer hours may be an exception, I guess. Many times I'd wished I was some place else, but I can't imagine anyone who hasn't felt that way at one time or another.)

Anyway..

True, most of the people who have agreed to be LOR writers for me have either expressly offered to let me read them or to outright let me write them. In either case, I am still likely to doublecheck just to be sure.

 

[drizzt3117]

You can rationalize any behavior with that logic. In any case, while this may be an effective strategy in this situation, you will need recs/refs after med school and cultivating relationships is an important skill to learn.

 

[DulyNoted]

Yes, Pritzker does, while you are correct in saying that Vanderbilt does not.

Well, damn. Now I'm even more confused. Thanks for the info + advice.

I see lots of people rejected early on from Vandy/Pritzker that have since gotten invitations of similar caliber. On the other hand, I got both of those invites followed by 5 weeks and 1 day of silence and am 91% convinced that my app season is over. (Which is fine with me, if I get into either of aforementioned school...) I'm probably just being impatient, but I have 13 other applications (and fees!) floating around out there...

 

[drizzt3117]

I am one of those early Pritzker rejects. My advice, as difficult as it is to follow, is to be patient, stay positive, and see what happens. There are no guarantees in life, but IMO youll be pleasantly surprised by the end of the cycle.

 

[bandaids]

I think you're worrying too much. Did you force your letter writers to give you a reference or blackmail them in some way? No. So my guess is they would politely decline your request instead of writing something so awful that it would keep you out of medical school.

 

[Perrotfish]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

Doing things you don't want to do to get want you want isn't unethical, its just work. It's pretty pathetic that you're at the point where you can't distinguish between doing something that you don't want to do (volunteering, research, giving a **** about someone elses career in primary care), and doing something wrong (requresting a copy of your confedential letter of recommendation so you can read it). Here's a good way to tell if you're being unethical: if it breaks someone's trust, it's unethical.

 

[0Complications]

This is why I ask for multiple copies of my LORs (those the writer does not openly give me a copy of) in sealed envelopes, at least one of each more than what I need, and then open one of them to see what was written about me before submitting them. Play it like you will address and apply postage yourself to "save the person the trouble" and most people will be happy to oblige not realizing your real motives.

I hope you're joking. If not, that is incredibly unethical...

 

[Dienekes]

Doing things you don't want to do to get want you want isn't unethical, its just work. It's pretty pathetic that you're at the point where you can't distinguish between doing something that you don't want to do (volunteering, research, giving a **** about someone elses career in primary care), and doing something wrong (requresting a copy of your confedential letter of recommendation so you can read it). Here's a good way to tell if you're being unethical: if it breaks someone's trust, it's unethical.

No, but acting like you did it out of the goodness of your heart is unethical (at least on some level). I have yet to see anyone openly admit to, in front of an interviewer, "Personally I could give a rat's ass about *insert underprivileged/underserved/etc group*. I worked with them solely because I felt obligated to do so by something other than concern for them." If people did that, then perhaps it might be a valid comparison to just jumping through hoops. They don't do that, so it is simply another form of deception which you seem to wish to turn a blind eye to.

Pathetic would be if I could not differentiate between two widely disparate sets of situational ethics...for example, grudgingly working with a group of people (criminals for example) I don't like, respect or care what happens to them and then claiming that I did it out of the goodness of my heart versus say....agreeing to kill someone in exchange for a medical school seat or to a lesser (but more common) degree, pulling an Iago and setting up the competition to hang their own ass. There is a lot of ethical ground between one form of deception (outright lying) as is commonly practiced by premeds and a little bit of espionage. The former is worse than the latter, but only if the espionage is done correctly.

Like I said before, there are varying degrees of unethical behavior. Also, it only breaks their trust if they know you did it. If they hand over the letters directly to the person they wrote about, they should expect that human nature would dictate someone covering their ass and making sure that they are not being blacklisted because of someone else's opinion. If they are truly concerned about it being confidential, then why in hell would they give it to you in the first place?

 

[Dienekes]

I hope you're joking. If not, that is incredibly unethical...

It is not nearly as unethical as the practices that most premeds engage in. Having a premed lecture you on ethics is like Hitler looking at Idi Amin and going "You know you have a real problem in dealing constructively with all the hate you feel towards others."

 

[mvenus929]

How is it "shady"? Technically once they hand them over to you, they are your property so you can do with them what you wish.

That's why a number of medical schools request that the writers send it directly, and that you waive your right to see it. I know one of my professors even refused to give the letters to the students... he required all the addresses up front.

It's only unethical if you get caught. Welcome to Situational Ethics 101...

I think I would be afraid to have you as my doctor...

No, but acting like you did it out of the goodness of your heart is unethical (at least on some level). I have yet to see anyone openly admit to, in front of an interviewer, "Personally I could give a rat's ass about *insert underprivileged/underserved/etc group*. I worked with them solely because I felt obligated to do so by something other than concern for them." If people did that, then perhaps it might be a valid comparison to just jumping through hoops. They don't do that, so it is simply another form of deception which you seem to wish to turn a blind eye to.

If I didn't enjoy my volunteering at all, I wouldn't do it. Sure, I started because I needed clinical experience, and that was the second easiest way to do it. If I was that sickened by what I had to do, though, I would find something else. I do benefit from it, and I don't deny that I do with interviewers. I say it has given me some insight into the medical field, but mostly from a nurse's perspective, because that's who I mostly deal with. I also get to play with kids once a week, and I like kids, so it's a fun experience for me. Granted, every week isn't fabulous, especially when I'm tired and should be studying or something, or have an incredibly long day ahead of me, but that I don't enjoy it most days...

 

[Abilene85]

So sleeping with someone who is not your wife/husband is only breaking their trust if they catch you? Bad bad bad.

How about you don't read the letters that you have waived your right to view. Also, don't do stuff you know you will hate. And if you do typical pre-med stuff and end up hating it, why do you have to lie to interviewers and say you loved it? I definitely told my interviewers about some activities that I didn't love but learned a lot from. Even if you hate an experience, you should be able to learn something.

 

[drizzt3117]

No, but acting like you did it out of the goodness of your heart is unethical (at least on some level). I have yet to see anyone openly admit to, in front of an interviewer, "Personally I could give a rat's ass about *insert underprivileged/underserved/etc group*. I worked with them solely because I felt obligated to do so by something other than concern for them." If people did that, then perhaps it might be a valid comparison to just jumping through hoops. They don't do that, so it is simply another form of deception which you seem to wish to turn a blind eye to.

This is somewhat true. If you aren't dedicated to such ideals, telling an ADCOM that you are is deception. That said, your motivations in that particular case aren't really the issue. Whether or not you care about underserved populations or not, if you volunteered your time to help them you are improving their lives, regardless of whether you care about them or not. While your motivations may not be altruistic, your behavior is. The same goes for research. What you're proposing with your LORs is not helping anyone except yourself, and you're deceiving people who are supposed to be giving you recommendations in confidence.

 

[brsboarder]

the basics of LOR's
1. yes its unethical to read them, even if they offer to show them to you
2. professors are used to writing them. They will decline to write you one if they don't feel as if they can write a good one. Therefore stop worrying and give it another 4 weeks. Honestly, its been 7 weeks during a busy busy year

 

[Kthanksbye]

This is why I ask for multiple copies of my LORs (those the writer does not openly give me a copy of) in sealed envelopes, at least one of each more than what I need, and then open one of them to see what was written about me before submitting them. Play it like you will address and apply postage yourself to "save the person the trouble" and most people will be happy to oblige not realizing your real motives.

Unethical, yes. But it is also incredibly naive to assume that they don't know what you're up to. Your professors aren't that dumb. They probably didn't mind showing you the letters in the first place. Why risk that trust by playing games and potentially coming off as acting unethically? The way to do it is to give all your reviewers stamped, addressed envelopes for each of your schools for THEM to mail, with whatever forms and instructions go with them. They will not expect you to mail them yourself. Once they hand you the letter, they HAVE to assume you have read it, whether the envelopes are sealed or not, simply because the potential is there. If they outright give you the letter, then that's fine. They have decided to waive their privacy. I would just be very upfront in the process, and not ask or attempt to see the letters unless they are given or unless you specifically and directly insist on seeing them (which you have the right to do, though it is not recommended). Personally, I would hope that you are asking people to write recommendations who you can trust to tell you straight whether they can provide a good recommendation in the first place. If they cannot, they should say so.

 

[bubbachuck]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

not all pre-meds hate their volunteer work or their research...

believe it or not, not all med students or pre-meds are in it for the money, glory, etc.

perhaps you should choose a different field.

if you go to med school, you'll learn about real ethical situations that actually require soul searching and you're cavalier attitude toward ethics will only hurt you.

 

[Dienekes]

But it is also incredibly naive to assume that they don't know what you're up to. Your professors aren't that dumb.

Did I say they wouldn't figure it out? No. Hell, one of them was the person who told me to do this because he got burned when he was applying to grad school by a prof writing a bad LOR. I was actually referring to the med schools finding out.

Personally, I would hope that you are asking people to write recommendations who you can trust to tell you straight whether they can provide a good recommendation in the first place.

Of course, however, I trust no one 100% except for myself.

I would just be very upfront in the process, and not ask or attempt to see the letters unless they are given or unless you specifically and directly insist on seeing them

I am upfront.... Even if they show me a letter, I still doublecheck it to be sure.

BubbaChuck, reread my comments...I never used the word "all" to describe premeds disliking their ECs. May I suggest you learn how to properly form a rebuttal before attempting to dance with me?

perhaps you should choose a different field.

Ah, yes. I was waiting for someone to go the "you're unworthy" route. 🙄 Grow up and realize that there is nothing morally superior about medicine. Hell, if greed motivates someone to do a damn good job by their patients, more power to them. I personally don't care....it's not what I'm after (because there are far easier ways to make more money than docs do) but to each and to their own by whatever means they have at their disposal.

if you go to med school, you'll learn about real ethical situations that actually require soul searching and you're cavalier attitude toward ethics will only hurt you.

I've been working in healthcare for over a decade (since you were possibly still in grade school) and have actually written on the subject of healthcare ethics before, so don't even try to pull that crap.

believe it or not, not all med students or pre-meds are in it for the money, glory, etc.

Surprisingly, I don't think they are (and neither am I, since you effectively insinuated as much). However, I do believe that most of them are willing to tell a little white lie if it helps them out.

 

[darkelven29]

Why don't you just ask your recommenders how they had written your letters? If they had enough time to do it? Were they provided enough information to write a strong letter? Would your recommenders lie about writing you a good letter when they didn't do so?

 

[dcgirl2007]

So? How is that any less ethical than feigning interest in primary care, spending hours doing volunteer work that you could give a **** about otherwise, doing research you aren't interested in, asking for people on here to basically answer secondary prompts for you, to name just a few other exceedingly common behaviors among premeds?

because you are a liar. and you breached the privacy of the LOR writers. you get to choose WHO you ask to write letters and you should choose carefully. but what you did is totally and completely unethical AND dishonest. if i were a med school and found out about that i would reject you outright.

better change your screen name, dude.

 

[Dienekes]

if i were a med school and found out about that i would reject you outright.

Two things:
1. How would they find out? You think I would tell the prof I opened the letter? I may regularly take a page from The Prince, but being suspicious and stupid are two separate traits.
2. You're not a medical school...you're just a premed who is trying to appear holier than thou. 🙂 Have a nice day.

and you breached the privacy of the LOR writers

BTW, I have not breached anything. They have no right to "privacy" if they give me the letters. You are probably (taking a blind stab here) assuming because it is a letter that it is covered by that rule that you can't open someone else's mail without their permission. That only applies once it has entered the postal system. If it is simply in an envelope without postage or an address, there is no legal basis by which to claim I have any more of a legal expectation NOT to read something that was given to me (making it effectively my property at that point, since they were doing a service for me), than if I found it in the hallway.

you get to choose WHO you ask to write letters and you should choose carefully.

Yes, but remember that most people who are taken down are taken down by those they trusted (Caesar by Brutus, Othello by Iago, etc). Rule #1: Never trust anyone completely.

but what you did is totally and completely unethical AND dishonest.

Is it a tiny bit underhanded? Yeah, but there isn't a single person on this forum who has never done something at least equally morally reprehensible to advance themselves or their cause. If you don't think you have not, then you are deluding yourselves.

because you are a liar.

FYI, an unfounded (and in this case, very unimaginative and poorly executed) attempt at character assassination is a term of service violation (such as accusing someone of being a liar when you have no solid evidence they did so), just so you know. Unless I sign a statement acknowledge that the letters are blinded to me, there is no culpability or "lie". I will not do that.

better change your screen name, dude.

The description of Dienekes mentions his valor and being a smartass, not being self-righteous. By the way, if you really want to see how morally superior the Spartans really were I recommend you read up on how Leonidas actually wound up as king. 😉

 

[dcgirl2007]

Two things:
1. How would they find out? You think I would tell the prof I opened the letter? I may regularly take a page from The Prince, but being suspicious and stupid are two separate traits.
2. You're not a medical school...you're just a premed who is trying to appear holier than thou. 🙂 Have a nice day.



BTW, I have not breached anything. They have no right to "privacy" if they give me the letters. You are probably (taking a blind stab here) assuming because it is a letter that it is covered by that rule that you can't open someone else's mail without their permission. That only applies once it has entered the postal system. If it is simply in an envelope without postage or an address, there is no legal basis by which to claim I have any more of a legal expectation NOT to read something that was given to me (making it effectively my property at that point, since they were doing a service for me), than if I found it in the hallway.



Yes, but remember that most people who are taken down are taken down by those they trusted (Caesar by Brutus, Othello by Iago, etc). Rule #1: Never trust anyone completely.



Is it a tiny bit underhanded? Yeah, but there isn't a single person on this forum who has never done something at least equally morally reprehensible to advance themselves or their cause. If you don't think you have not, then you are deluding yourselves.


FYI, an unfounded (and in this case, very unimaginative and poorly executed) attempt at character assassination is a term of service violation (such as accusing someone of being a liar when you have no solid evidence they did so), just so you know. Unless I sign a statement acknowledge that the letters are blinded to me, there is no culpability or "lie". I will not do that.


The description of Dienekes mentions his valor and being a smartass, not being self-righteous. By the way, if you really want to see how morally superior the Spartans really were I recommend you read up on how Leonidas actually wound up as king. 😉

your itemized responses sound a bit panicky, as they should. actually, i am a lawyer. i understand the issues of fraud, privacy, misrepresentation, etc. you certainly haven't broken any "laws," but the standard of whether you did something improper is not, as you state, "how would they find out."

and as to that, there is a recent multipage thread on SDN about how easy it is for med schools, if they so choose, to figure out the identity of someone who posts here. in your case, they would be motivated. i truly believe that they would reject you or retract an acceptance because of your conduct.

you behaved very badly. accept responsibility, don't make excuses. medicine is a profession that requires the highest of ethical standards. you need to step it up or get out.

note: if you have posted interview invites or interview dates, not hard for a school to figure out who you are since some interview days about 8 people.

sorry to make you paranoid, but you deserve it.

 

[FloridaSun]

I don't wish to agree OR disagree with Dienekes, but I will bring up a related situation.

A couple of months ago, I went to the printer downstairs to pick up some of the pages that I had printed and I accidentally ran across a rec letter from my boss. Because it was in the middle of the pages I had printed myself, it took me a second to realize what I was looking at.

I was shocked.

Apparently my boss is incapable of writing a rec letter that is even remotely original. Further, her grammar was appalling and it looked like she had never considered using spellcheck.

Would I have considered reading a rec letter before? Probably not. Will I now? Probably not. Am I sorry that I accidentally read the letter? NO. I now have a very good idea of who will NOT be writing me a rec letter.

In a lot of ways, Dienekes is right -- there are people that you CAN'T trust to write you good letters. Sometimes things happen that probably shouldn't and you probably don't want to waste $1000+ dollars on an application because your boss writes like a 5th grader.

*I also happen to think that any teacher that can't see through the "I'll mail the letters for you" idea is an idiot. Seriously. It's not THAT sneaky if it's so obvious.

And technically, I suppose it's not a lie, is it? Dienekes waived the right to read any of the letters that were being sent to the school. He DIDN'T waive the right to read another copy of it. This is not the strongest of the arguments I've brought up and I realize that.

OK, I should probably back out of this argument lest I seem entirely unethical. I probably wouldn't read the letters myself because I wouldn't want people to even THINK that I would have dishonest motives.

 

[Dienekes]

your itemized responses sound a bit panicky, as they should.

Not panicky, just the way I was taught to rebut arguments.

actually, i am a lawyer.

Interesting, I would have never expected you (judging by your posts) to have completed any sort of professional education. For some reason I have my doubts about the validity of your claims.

accept responsibility, don't make excuses.

Who is making excuses? I have done nothing that I am ashamed of and simply wish to make sure that someone who is writing my LORs is a backstabbing son of a bitch who happens to be quite good at hiding it.

medicine is a profession that requires the highest of ethical standards. you need to step it up or get out.

So is the legal profession on paper. 😉 BTW, I have worked in healthcare for over a decade. I have never had anyone even question my ethics and this includes several members of admissions committees at a couple of different schools where I have been on the staff.

you behaved very badly.

I haven't done anything. Keep reading....

note: if you have posted interview invites or interview dates, not hard for a school to figure out who you are since some interview days about 8 people.

All the more reason- beyond it not being anyone else's damn business- not to put that sort of crap up on a public forum. You don't think I realized this long before you mentioned it. (I am not a wet behind the ears premed)

sorry to make you paranoid, but you deserve it.

Who is paranoid? You're the one who seems concerned about this crap to warrant making a big deal out of idle supposition and someone playing devil's advocate. I am not applying this cycle, and on any account, everyone I have approached to write my LORs has offered to let me see them so either way they are not technically blinded. 😉 I was just interested in seeing how well my fellow premeds could handle a theoretical issue such as this.

 

[dcgirl2007]

Not panicky, just the way I was taught to rebut arguments.



Interesting, I would have never expected you (judging by your posts) to have completed any sort of professional education. For some reason I have my doubts about the validity of your claims.



Who is making excuses? I have done nothing that I am ashamed of and simply wish to make sure that someone who is writing my LORs is a backstabbing son of a bitch who happens to be quite good at hiding it.



So is the legal profession on paper. 😉 BTW, I have worked in healthcare for over a decade. I have never had anyone even question my ethics and this includes several members of admissions committees at a couple of different schools where I have been on the staff.



I haven't done anything. Keep reading....


All the more reason- beyond it not being anyone else's damn business- not to put that sort of crap up on a public forum. You don't think I realized this long before you mentioned it. (I am not a wet behind the ears premed)


Who is paranoid? You're the one who seems concerned about this crap to warrant making a big deal out of idle supposition and someone playing devil's advocate. I am not applying this cycle, and on any account, everyone I have approached to write my LORs has offered to let me see them so either way they are not technically blinded. 😉 I was just interested in seeing how well my fellow premeds could handle a theoretical issue such as this.

ahh. "not applying this cycle." explains a lot. enough said. i'm done here.

 

[Dienekes]

ahh. "not applying this cycle." explains a lot. enough said. i'm done here.

 

[dcgirl2007]

wow. quite sad, actually.

 

[limpkitty]

Dienekes, nice dude way to stick to these pansy premeds.

But, I was wondering if you can have interfolio send your lors to yourself or a friend in order to read them. Anyone Know?

 

[Dienekes]

wow. quite sad, actually.

See...you just lied in your previous post to make yourself seem more mature and/or superior than you actually are. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[He2]

Dienekes,
You make very valid points. Like all sides of an argument, there are positives, and negatives toward any and all endpoints. Often times, debates boil down to the eye of the beholder: is the glass half full or half empty? Better yet, as you will undoubtedly argue: what if the glass is 90% empty, or 10% full? Wouldn't and SHOULDN'T you call that glass mostly empty? This is the essential crux of your argument (I'll get more specific in a bit), however, there is an essential problem with your argument. Your choice of the side of the debate tells us more about your behavior than any logical debate rhetoric, valid or not.

It is that ethics does not work in logic like that. Ethics is often times more about the role of your CHOICE of the side. Thus, readers will wonder: "why is it that you decided to argue for such an obviously unethical position?"

You also consistently make the point that every single one of us has done such things--thus your actions are ok, and that none of us are allowed to argue against your point. While I completely agree that all of us have done such things, simply because we are human, this again goes with my point before of why it is you decided to argue on this side of the argument. While we have all done unethical things in the past, the majority of us truly do try to become better human beings and learn from our mistakes. You could have just as easily seen it as an argument that, while none of us are perfect, we do strive to become better people by learning from our mistakes. Instead, you decided that the most logical conclusion was that we should all do unethical things, since we have done unethical things in the past. That is, there is 50% to each side of that debate. Or, better yet, I'm sure you would like to say that it is obvious that 99.9999999% of the debate is in favor of the argument that we have done unethical things in the past, thus your actions are equally justified and .0000001% in favor of the side of the argument that says that we are just trying to learn from our mistakes. This is very telling; there are two conclusions we can make about you. One is that you are so bitter and beat down by how the world has presented itself to you that you ended up with a toxic attitude, or that you are simply a negative person, and even if the world has presented itself to you in a good way, you still decided to take a negative stance.

Now, I want to emphasize that these are the generalizations that anyone reading these posts CAN make. I truly hope I am wrong, and that this is just one of those "mistakes" that help you become a better person. As I have mentioned, it is not that we have made mistakes in the past, not that we have done unethical things, but that we continue to strive for this unattainable perfection, because that tells outside observers about your character.

Thus, your actions are unethical because you choose to do them, that you chose to justify them, not that they are or are not justified. You TRIED to justify it, no matter how much evidence is for or against it.
Now, I want to get to the Nitty Gritty of your argument. It doesn't matter what evidence there is to each side of the debate. I just want to point out that there is some in favor of the other side. So, seeing that, why is it that you so staunchly debate the clearly unethical side in every single situation?

a) Under-grads do things they don't like, thus they are being false. My actions are no different
b) The LOR are your property: you should have the right to know about it
c) Its not illegal! In two different ways. 1, There is no requirement for privacy. 2, There is no lie, since I am not legally bound to do tell them what I've done
d) Only Unethical if you get caught
e) Its just double checking
f) You can't trust anyone 100%
g) There is nothing morally superior to medicine, heck, money can drive them to do better!
h) I've written in ethics before, I'm in the know.
i) I've never been questioned before! AND, I've been in reputable situations!

Here are the counter-points:
a) As I've mentioned, yes, everyone has done underhanded things. Some people do less and less as they get older. Some do more and more. Some do just as many underhanded things as they get older and older. Why aren't you trying to be in the former category? That tells us about your character
b) See c
c) I'm going to group b and c together, because they are essentially the same argument: Its not illegal, therefore its not unethical. I'm going to make a quick point here, and its that if you see a pedestrian jaywalking, and you decide to speed up and mow him down, you would be entirely in right legally. Keep this in mind. To a lesser extreme, there is no legal reason to hold the door open for an elderly woman, no legal reason to say thank you to someone. Yet, why do you do it? Keep that in mind, but I want to refer you to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. From Wikipedia:
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.

Keep in mind there are two stages of development past this one:
Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's. It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors.
In Stage five (social contract driven), individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values. Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people.[8] This is attained through majority decision, and inevitably compromise. In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

d) It is not only unethical if you get caught. Please. I'll let you take this one back, but as someone mentioned before: Is cheating on your spouse only unethical if you've been caught?
e) It's just double checking: Why do you feel so insecure so that you need to double check these people who you know are supposedly so overwhelmed with the integrity of your character? These letters of recommendations are so that they make sure they have people who apply who can have people vouch for them, to tell the acceptance committee that these are good people. Maybe, if you didn't have the mindset that it is ethical to open people's letters, you would do more ethical things, and thus they would write good things about you, and you would know that they did as well. Why are you so unsure of this?
f) You can't trust anyone 100%, but as you mentioned yourself, you CAN trust YOURSELF 100%. If you've truly acted ethically, why would someone write an unethical letter about you? That takes way too much effort. Their actions will follow your actions, which you can trust. If you knew your actions were 100% ethical, you would be confident that they would follow suit. Not believing so tells about your insecurity to this fact, real or imagined. So if you disregard all my previous points about CHOOSING sides, then you lose your all your logical arguments right here.
g) There is nothing ethically superior to medicine: there may not be anything ethically superior, but there it is a ground for a wide range of strong ethical debates. Do you keep this person alive, even though she is braindead? How do you cope with seeing so much death? Thus, whats the meaning of life? These questions are much more prevelant in the medical field than in, for instance, real estate. There isn't anything superior, but it does force you to think with a different paradigm.
h) I really hope you havn't, and it really does not seem like you have. But this is a completely moot point, because all this argument does is it tries to convince us of your expertise. However, ethics doesn't care about expertise. Its like a thief trying to say that he's not a thief, his actions, or in this case, your choice of words, tells more of a story than anything else.
i) See above.


So what I'm hoping is that you take this post and think about your stance, and that you simply become a more USEFUL person to the world. Not necessarily better. However, I really do hope you don't come and rebut this argument with:
a) "I'm not bitter, your just blind to the real world"
Here are my counter-argument, just in case you do
a) The fact that you choose to see it as " I am blind to the world" ignores the fact that being and choosing ethical sides to the debate has more power than you can imagine in changing that bitter and pessimistic world. Even if it doesn't, I'd rather pick the blind than the bitter, which i view as just as blind. I'm also hoping that you are willing to change your stance, in which case being blind to the world is the more functional side of the debate


Some people, if given 100% evidence on one side of a debate, will still do what he or she believes. Sometimes, this leads to George Bush. Other times, this leads to a few thousand Spartans fighting hundreds of thousands(probably) of Persians. 🙂

 

[BrokenGlass]

Dienekes,
You make very valid points. Like all sides of an argument, there are positives, and negatives toward any and all endpoints. Often times, debates boil down to the eye of the beholder: is the glass half full or half empty? Better yet, as you will undoubtedly argue: what if the glass is 90% empty, or 10% full? Wouldn’t and SHOULDN’T you call that glass mostly empty? This is the essential crux of your argument (I’ll get more specific in a bit), however, there is an essential problem with your argument. Your choice of the side of the debate tells us more about your behavior than any logical debate rhetoric, valid or not.

It is that ethics does not work in logic like that. Ethics is often times more about the role of your CHOICE of the side. Thus, readers will wonder: “why is it that you decided to argue for such an obviously unethical position?”

You also consistently make the point that every single one of us has done such things--thus your actions are ok, and that none of us are allowed to argue against your point. While I completely agree that all of us have done such things, simply because we are human, this again goes with my point before of why it is you decided to argue on this side of the argument. While we have all done unethical things in the past, the majority of us truly do try to become better human beings and learn from our mistakes. You could have just as easily seen it as an argument that, while none of us are perfect, we do strive to become better people by learning from our mistakes. Instead, you decided that the most logical conclusion was that we should all do unethical things, since we have done unethical things in the past. That is, there is 50% to each side of that debate. Or, better yet, I’m sure you would like to say that it is obvious that 99.9999999% of the debate is in favor of the argument that we have done unethical things in the past, thus your actions are equally justified and .0000001% in favor of the side of the argument that says that we are just trying to learn from our mistakes. This is very telling; there are two conclusions we can make about you. One is that you are so bitter and beat down by how the world has presented itself to you that you ended up with a toxic attitude, or that you are simply a negative person, and even if the world has presented itself to you in a good way, you still decided to take a negative stance.

Now, I want to emphasize that these are the generalizations that anyone reading these posts CAN make. I truly hope I am wrong, and that this is just one of those “mistakes” that help you become a better person. As I have mentioned, it is not that we have made mistakes in the past, not that we have done unethical things, but that we continue to strive for this unattainable perfection, because that tells outside observers about your character.

Thus, your actions are unethical because you choose to do them, that you chose to justify them, not that they are or are not justified. You TRIED to justify it, no matter how much evidence is for or against it.
Now, I want to get to the Nitty Gritty of your argument. It doesn’t matter what evidence there is to each side of the debate. I just want to point out that there is some in favor of the other side. So, seeing that, why is it that you so staunchly debate the clearly unethical side in every single situation?

a) Under-grads do things they don’t like, thus they are being false. My actions are no different
b) The LOR are your property: you should have the right to know about it
c) Its not illegal! In two different ways. 1, There is no requirement for privacy. 2, There is no lie, since I am not legally bound to do tell them what I’ve done
d) Only Unethical if you get caught
e) Its just double checking
f) You can’t trust anyone 100%
g) There is nothing morally superior to medicine, heck, money can drive them to do better!
h) I’ve written in ethics before, I’m in the know.
i) I’ve never been questioned before! AND, I’ve been in reputable situations!

Here are the counter-points:
a) As I’ve mentioned, yes, everyone has done underhanded things. Some people do less and less as they get older. Some do more and more. Some do just as many underhanded things as they get older and older. Why aren’t you trying to be in the former category? That tells us about your character
b) See c
c) I’m going to group b and c together, because they are essentially the same argument: Its not illegal, therefore its not unethical. I’m going to make a quick point here, and its that if you see a pedestrian jaywalking, and you decide to speed up and mow him down, you would be entirely in right legally. Keep this in mind. To a lesser extreme, there is no legal reason to hold the door open for an elderly woman, no legal reason to say thank you to someone. Yet, why do you do it? Keep that in mind, but I want to refer you to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. From Wikipedia:
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.

Keep in mind there are two stages of development past this one:
Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's. It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors.
In Stage five (social contract driven), individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values. Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people.[8] This is attained through majority decision, and inevitably compromise. In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

d) It is not only unethical if you get caught. Please. I’ll let you take this one back, but as someone mentioned before: Is cheating on your spouse only unethical if you’ve been caught?
e) It’s just double checking: Why do you feel so insecure so that you need to double check these people who you know are supposedly so overwhelmed with the integrity of your character? These letters of recommendations are so that they make sure they have people who apply who can have people vouch for them, to tell the acceptance committee that these are good people. Maybe, if you didn’t have the mindset that it is ethical to open people’s letters, you would do more ethical things, and thus they would write good things about you, and you would know that they did as well. Why are you so unsure of this?
f) You can’t trust anyone 100%, but as you mentioned yourself, you CAN trust YOURSELF 100%. If you’ve truly acted ethically, why would someone write an unethical letter about you? That takes way too much effort. Their actions will follow your actions, which you can trust. If you knew your actions were 100% ethical, you would be confident that they would follow suit. Not believing so tells about your insecurity to this fact, real or imagined. So if you disregard all my previous points about CHOOSING sides, then you lose your all your logical arguments right here.
g) There is nothing ethically superior to medicine: there may not be anything ethically superior, but there it is a ground for a wide range of strong ethical debates. Do you keep this person alive, even though she is braindead? How do you cope with seeing so much death? Thus, whats the meaning of life? These questions are much more prevelant in the medical field than in, for instance, real estate. There isn’t anything superior, but it does force you to think with a different paradigm.
h) I really hope you havn’t, and it really does not seem like you have. But this is a completely moot point, because all this argument does is it tries to convince us of your expertise. However, ethics doesn’t care about expertise. Its like a thief trying to say that he’s not a thief, his actions, or in this case, your choice of words, tells more of a story than anything else.
i) See above.


So what I’m hoping is that you take this post and think about your stance, and that you simply become a more USEFUL person to the world. Not necessarily better. However, I really do hope you don’t come and rebut this argument with:
a) “I’m not bitter, your just blind to the real world”
Here are my counter-argument, just in case you do
a) The fact that you choose to see it as “ I am blind to the world” ignores the fact that being and choosing ethical sides to the debate has more power than you can imagine in changing that bitter and pessimistic world. Even if it doesn’t, I’d rather pick the blind than the bitter, which i view as just as blind. I’m also hoping that you are willing to change your stance, in which case being blind to the world is the more functional side of the debate


Some people, if given 100% evidence on one side of a debate, will still do what he or she believes. Sometimes, this leads to George Bush. Other times, this leads to a few thousand Spartans fighting hundreds of thousands(probably) of Persians. 🙂

The glass is neither half full nor half empty. The glass is broken.

 

[Kthanksbye]

^^^^Bravo if you have that much time!👍


At any rate, the guy keeps changing his story. First he opened the letters without the profs knowledge, then they gave them to him to read, then he's talking about the med schools not knowing he read them, not the profs not knowing, then he's not even sending letters as he's not applying...it's a pretty shifty argument that seems to describe things that aren't actually happening. Of course now he's gonna post how he didn't change his story, but it's right there for all to read. What's clear is that it's not that complicated of an issue to require a a 2 page paper on. And the ethics of the matter are pretty clear cut. If you can't figure it out by now, there's no point in arguing further.

 

[He2]

ppl have alot of pride, theyre not gona just believe it with 2-3 sentences 🙂

 

[Dienekes]

Your choice of the side of the debate tells us more about your behavior than any logical debate rhetoric, valid or not.

But what if one chooses to argue which he finds morally reprehensible simply because otherwise there is no challenge to it? I can argue the "up side" to an ethnic cleansing if need be and make it sound decently rational. That does not mean I actually engage in such behavior nor condone those who do.

One is that you are so bitter and beat down by how the world has presented itself to you that you ended up with a toxic attitude that you are simply a negative person, and even if the world has presented itself to you in a good way, you still decided to take a negative stance.

Nope...I may well be on the cynical side, but people who deal with me in person tend to find me a rather happy person most of the time.

Thus, your actions are unethical because you choose to do them, that you chose to justify them, not that they are or are not justified. You TRIED to justify it, no matter how much evidence is for or against it.

Then by that approach, one could theoretically argue that my running into a burning building to save a child is unethical because I choose to do and justify it because I like the way it makes me feel.

So, seeing that, why is it that you so staunchly debate the clearly unethical side in every single situation?

j. I only argue that side because it stimulates a good debate like this one.

a) As I've mentioned, yes, everyone has done underhanded things. Some people do less and less as they get older. Some do more and more. Some do just as many underhanded things as they get older and older. Why aren't you trying to be in the former category? That tells us about your character

No, it tells you nothing about my character, other than I like to debate the less popular side of an issue. It doesn't mean that I actually believe it or would carry it out any more than the fact that I have portrayed a Nazi on stage in a play makes me a Nazi.

c) I'm going to group b and c together, because they are essentially the same argument: Its not illegal, therefore its not unethical.

I never said it was not illegal. I stated that there is no presumed expectation that if you give someone something to do with it as they wish (in this case submit it to whereever), that they will not look in it. When we had a similar debate in my ethics class the rebuttal to my point was "It's illegal to read someone else's mail!" so I pointed out the fallacies inherent in that logical here as I imagined our "lawyer" friend was going to attempt that same approach.

its that if you see a pedestrian jaywalking, and you decide to speed up and mow him down, you would be entirely in right legally. Keep this in mind.

No, because you are using a response entirely out of balance with the degree of criminality of jaywalking. It's an invalid example because you are assuming that "my" stance (reading the letter) is out of proportion to the unethical response of a prof telling someone they will write them a good letter and then not doing so. This is not to mention that you are also overlooking the fact- for the sake of a hyperbolic response to the perceived "legal = ethical" stance- that there is no victim in the case of someone opening a letter and making sure they are getting what they asked for, as there would be if you ran someone over because they jaywalked.

Is cheating on your spouse only unethical if you've been caught?

Depends on who you ask...normally, and for the sake of not making this post any longer than it needs to be, yes. However there are extenuating circumstances that one could argue that at least part of the blame for the infidelity lays with the partner who was cheated upon....that is a matter for another thread though.

Why do you feel so insecure so that you need to double check these people who you know are supposedly so overwhelmed with the integrity of your character?

I don't. See the point I made above about arguing a point to simply get a lively and challenging debate out of it.

You can't trust anyone 100%, but as you mentioned yourself, you CAN trust YOURSELF 100%. If you've truly acted ethically, why would someone write an unethical letter about you?

Not using myself as an example but some reasons I could think of people would enjoy screwing someone over would include jealousy and the enjoyment of watching someone else fail.

Do you keep this person alive, even though she is braindead?

No, that would be unethical. It's a waste of resources that could be used to treat someone else who might benefit from it.

How do you cope with seeing so much death?

Walk out the door at the end of the day and go do something I enjoy while thinking "I'm lucky it wasn't me."

Thus, whats the meaning of life?

That's not ethics, that is philosophy. Perhaps you meant what is the definition of life. I have worked in critical care for over a decade, and I have yet to see a doctor go balls out philosophical in the ICU.

There isn't anything superior, but it does force you to think with a different paradigm.

Very true....however I was simply trying to overcome the common premed fallacy that you have to be of superior moral character to be an outstanding physician. It helps, but it is not an absolute must have.

The fact that you choose to see it as " I am blind to the world" ignores the fact that being and choosing ethical sides to the debate has more power than you can imagine in changing that bitter and pessimistic world.

No, I would never accuse you of that. I can see both sides of the issue, and that is why I chose to argue the one that was the unpopular option because it never hurts to try to make people see the other side of the coin. That is something premeds especially should be forced to do more often.

Other times, this leads to a few thousand Spartans fighting hundreds of thousands(probably) of Persians.

A few thousand Greeks, not just Spartans (of which there were ~300). 😉 I believe 210,000 on the side of Xerxes is the reasonable estimate most often quoted, based on the availability of water supplies for the Persian army. 😉

 

[Dienekes]

At any rate, the guy keeps changing his story. First he opened the letters without the profs knowledge, then they gave them to him to read, then he's talking about the med schools not knowing he read them, not the profs not knowing, then he's not even sending letters as he's not applying...

I never changed the argument (there's the rebuttal, the truth you expected but will deny as truth). The statement was that some would give the letters sealed, others would give them openly for you to read; those are the two options that would provide circumstances for an ethical quandry. You just need to learn to follow a little closer.

You will notice I never said I was applying this cycle. Thank you for your input though.

it's a pretty shifty argument that seems to describe things that aren't actually happening.

You aren't a fan of hypothetical argument are you? That's all that was.

If you can't figure it out by now, there's no point in arguing further.

On this we agree....although if anyone wants to PM me to continue discussions of ethics, feel free as I am always happy to argue counterpoint.

 

[dcgirl2007]

this is the most attention this guy has ever received, there is not doubt of that.

however, it is weirdly fun to goad him, though it is like shooting fish in a barrel.


the verdict is in based on deineke's last post. he has been in the helth care field for years and hates doctors. he hates med students more. he will never be either. hence his pathetic attempts to engage in sophistry with people whom he fears, but cannot accept, are more intelligent than he.

we should make a new "Deineke greatest hits" thread. my first nomination is his claim that he can make an ethical argument in favor of ethnic cleansing.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I never changed the argument

Obviously, you changed the circumstances of your original hypothetical statement multiple times...anyone with the patience to actually read these posts would see that.

although if anyone wants to PM me to continue discussions of ethics, feel free as I am always happy to argue counterpoint.

Um...that creeps me out a little...

 

[He2]

this is the most attention this guy has ever received, there is not doubt of that.

however, it is weirdly fun to goad him, though it is like shooting fish in a barrel.


the verdict is in based on deineke's last post. he has been in the helth care field for years and hates doctors. he hates med students more. he will never be either. hence his pathetic attempts to engage in sophistry with people whom he fears, but cannot accept, are more intelligent than he.

we should make a new "Deineke greatest hits" thread. my first nomination is his claim that he can make an ethical argument in favor of ethnic cleansing.

no need to be malicious 🙂. Either hes telling the truth and just wants to argue, in which case hes no harm, or hes not telling the truth, and looking for a good cop out, in which case he ends up being no harm. Either way, it all works out

 

[Dienekes]

Obviously, you changed the circumstances of your original hypothetical statement multiple times...anyone with the patience to actually read these posts would see that.

The only way I changed it was to point out (in the end) that I was arguing supposition, not reality.

Um...that creeps me out a little...

Why? So what if I enjoy a good debate...one of the problems with ethical debates is that you often have a hard time finding someone (outside of a war crimes tribunal) who can truly stand their ground and get into defending the unethical side of things.

 

[dcgirl2007]

no need to be malicious 🙂. Either hes telling the truth and just wants to argue, in which case hes no harm, or hes not telling the truth, and looking for a good cop out, in which case he ends up being no harm. Either way, it all works out

you're right, didn't mean to be mean, just kidding. but Mr D seems pretty thick skinned; he seems to love the fight.

on a serious note, a lot of young college student read this site. they need to see those of us (seems like all of us) who are willing to put down bad conduct. Ethics are not situational; what he did was "wrong" in an absolute sense. it is not open to debate just because he is debating it.

HE TOOK SEALED LORs FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE KIND ENOUGH TO TAKE THE TIME TO WRITE THEM FOR HIM; TOLD THEM HE WOULD MAIL THEM; AND THEN OPENED THEM. this is not even close to the gray area here.