Cardiologist and former med school interviewer available to answer questions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Although it is a continual scale, is there a preference for outgoing highly energetic extroverted people over a more calm collected quiet introverted person assuming confidence in both are evident? I seem to see a bias for extroverted people in most professions, I wonder if that is the case with medicine.

I am asking this because I see myself as a more quiet person. Thanks for doing this.
 
What are some things that "younger" applicants (as in current seniors in undergrad, so 20-22) can do to seem more mature? There seems to be a push in a lot of places for life experience and maturity before medical school; if someone is applying during the "traditional" timeline, how should they prove that they are as mature and capable as other, older applicants?

One more.. I don't remember if this was already asked, but what kind of doctor did you think you wanted to be when you started med school? What about what sub-specialty when you started your residency (if any)?

Thanks so much for doing this!!
 
Although it is a continual scale, is there a preference for outgoing highly energetic extroverted people over a more calm collected quiet introverted person assuming confidence in both are evident? I seem to see a bias for extroverted people in most professions, I wonder if that is the case with medicine.

I am asking this because I see myself as a more quiet person. Thanks for doing this.

I think that extroverts are probably remembered more, but that can be good OR bad. The best impressions are often made by those somewhere in between: Friendly and confident, but also humble and at-ease
 
What are some things that "younger" applicants (as in current seniors in undergrad, so 20-22) can do to seem more mature? There seems to be a push in a lot of places for life experience and maturity before medical school; if someone is applying during the "traditional" timeline, how should they prove that they are as mature and capable as other, older applicants?

One more.. I don't remember if this was already asked, but what kind of doctor did you think you wanted to be when you started med school? What about what sub-specialty when you started your residency (if any)?

Thanks so much for doing this!!

A lot of young applicants do come across as mature. Read the newspaper (ask your parents what that is), and be informed, especially about heath care -- I can almost guarantee most interviewers will bring up the topic. Make eye contact, and smile (But not too much. You don't want to look fake). Young applicants also seem to, for some reason, have already chosen a sub-sub specialty before event applying for medical school. If you tell the interviewer that you've known since the 4th grade that you've wanted to be a pediatric orthopedic trauma surgeon, your maturity may be questionable.

When I applied for medical school, I told everyone I wanted to be a neurologist, then an ophthalmologist, then a surgeon or EM physician. When I applied for residency, I was sure I was going to be a nephrologist.
 
OP, great insights!

I get the sense that you love what you do. I'd like to know what you don't like about Cardiology. From what I know, cards see a lot of sicker patients, and sometimes the outcomes are not great. Is the field tough emotionally? toughness is relative to the individual, of course.

Thanks!

I enjoy treating sick patients. It's challenging, and it's why I went into medicine. There's a lot of science, pharmacology and physiology involved in treating critically ill patients, and you can often rapidly see the results of your efforts. But I disagree with one of your points: outcomes are actually quite good in cardiology. There are no other fields in medicine with as many medications and procedures that have been shown in clinical trials to improve mortality. The treatment of heart attacks and coronary disease has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. Catheter-based procedures can often "cure" arrhythmias". Pacemakers and defibrillators are commonly used, amazing life-saving devices. I have countless patients that were at one point critically ill, and are now living happy, fulfilling lives.

There's little that I dislike about cardiology. By far the biggest complaint that I address as a cardiologist is "chest pain"; while that can get a little old at times, what I like about cardiology is that often I can relatively confidently determine whether the problem is cardiac or not. When it is, it is usually treatable, and when it's not, I can refer the patient back to their PCP.

When choosing a specialty, it's important to be realistic about what you're going to treat. Most specialties have a "most common problem" they treat, and that will almost invariably make up the bulk of you practice. You had better like treating that condition. For example, if you go into neurology, you may not see a ton of Guillan Barre Syndrome, but you'll see a TON of strokes and headaches. GI sees a lot of GERD, dyspepsia. I liked nephrology initially because I found electrolyte disorders interesting, but I didn't love dialysis. If you go into endocrinology, the bulk of your practice will likely be diabetes and thyroid disease. If you go into urology, the bulk of your practice will be treating kidney stones and enlarged prostates. Choose wisely, with realistic understanding.
 
I enjoy treating sick patients. It's challenging, and it's why I went into medicine. There's a lot of science, pharmacology and physiology involved in treating critically ill patients, and you can often rapidly see the results of your efforts. But I disagree with one of your points: outcomes are actually quite good in cardiology. There are no other fields in medicine with as many medications and procedures that have been shown in clinical trials to improve mortality. The treatment of heart attacks and coronary disease has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. Catheter-based procedures can often "cure" arrhythmias". Pacemakers and defibrillators are commonly used, amazing life-saving devices. I have countless patients that were at one point critically ill, and are now living happy, fulfilling lives.

There's little that I dislike about cardiology. By far the biggest complaint that I address as a cardiologist is "chest pain"; while that can get a little old at times, what I like about cardiology is that often I can relatively confidently determine whether the problem is cardiac or not. When it is, it is usually treatable, and when it's not, I can refer the patient back to their PCP.

When choosing a specialty, it's important to be realistic about what you're going to treat. Most specialties have a "most common problem" they treat, and that will almost invariably make up the bulk of you practice. You had better like treating that condition. For example, if you go into neurology, you may not see a ton of Guillan Barre Syndrome, but you'll see a TON of strokes and headaches. GI sees a lot of GERD, dyspepsia. I liked nephrology initially because I found electrolyte disorders interesting, but I didn't love dialysis. If you go into endocrinology, the bulk of your practice will likely be diabetes and thyroid disease. If you go into urology, the bulk of your practice will be treating kidney stones and enlarged prostates. Choose wisely, with realistic understanding.

Thanks! I will remember this for the next four years as I consider my path.
 
How do you feel about the short story personal statement? That's what I did this year (and will probably do again as I reapply)

Let me clarify that I'm an english major and creative writing is a personal hobby of mine so I'm not a complete newbie at this.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

A short story, if there is some relavance to why it's your personal statement, can be memorable and effective. Especially when the personal statement doesn't need to be used to discuss a deficiency in the application.
 
Hey thanks for your responses. As someone who's currently in a professional school (pharmacy), I'm curious to know how admissions committees view someone who is interested in switching career paths from pharmacy to medicine. Would it negatively impact the applicant if the pharmacy program isn't finished by the time medical school begins? Have you seen anyone apply to med school with the intent of switching schools halfway through a program?
 
OP:

Have you heard of any physicians returning to do a fellowship after several years of practicing (post-residency)? I understand there are logistical issues with this (i.e. they are established and making a decent income and aren't excited about returning to working like a dog for low pay in a fellowship), but are there any biases against this from a fellowship director's standpoint? It seems like everyone plows straight through.
 
A lot of young applicants do come across as mature. Read the newspaper (ask your parents what that is), and be informed, especially about heath care -- I can almost guarantee most interviewers will bring up the topic. Make eye contact, and smile (But not too much. You don't want to look fake). Young applicants also seem to, for some reason, have already chosen a sub-sub specialty before event applying for medical school. If you tell the interviewer that you've known since the 4th grade that you've wanted to be a pediatric orthopedic trauma surgeon, your maturity may be questionable.

When I applied for medical school, I told everyone I wanted to be a neurologist, then an ophthalmologist, then a surgeon or EM physician. When I applied for residency, I was sure I was going to be a nephrologist.

I don't fully understand. If an applicant doesn't have something specific in mind, then it's just a charade. Medicine is such a broad field that just saying you want to be a "doctor" and you're open to anything is a worthless statement. I can't think of a single thing that all docs have in common. There's no problem with changing one's mind, but to enter into 7+ years of training without specific specialties in mind seems ludicrous.
 
I enjoy treating sick patients. It's challenging, and it's why I went into medicine. There's a lot of science, pharmacology and physiology involved in treating critically ill patients, and you can often rapidly see the results of your efforts. But I disagree with one of your points: outcomes are actually quite good in cardiology. There are no other fields in medicine with as many medications and procedures that have been shown in clinical trials to improve mortality. The treatment of heart attacks and coronary disease has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. Catheter-based procedures can often "cure" arrhythmias". Pacemakers and defibrillators are commonly used, amazing life-saving devices. I have countless patients that were at one point critically ill, and are now living happy, fulfilling lives.

There's little that I dislike about cardiology. By far the biggest complaint that I address as a cardiologist is "chest pain"; while that can get a little old at times, what I like about cardiology is that often I can relatively confidently determine whether the problem is cardiac or not. When it is, it is usually treatable, and when it's not, I can refer the patient back to their PCP.

When choosing a specialty, it's important to be realistic about what you're going to treat. Most specialties have a "most common problem" they treat, and that will almost invariably make up the bulk of you practice. You had better like treating that condition. For example, if you go into neurology, you may not see a ton of Guillan Barre Syndrome, but you'll see a TON of strokes and headaches. GI sees a lot of GERD, dyspepsia. I liked nephrology initially because I found electrolyte disorders interesting, but I didn't love dialysis. If you go into endocrinology, the bulk of your practice will likely be diabetes and thyroid disease. If you go into urology, the bulk of your practice will be treating kidney stones and enlarged prostates. Choose wisely, with realistic understanding.
Thanks for the response.
 
how much is shadowing doctors valued as a part of clinical experience, if at all? what about shadowing surgeons? is that considered less-so since there's not much doctor-patient interaction to observe in shadowing a surgeon?

im asking because most of my shadowing experience has been shadowing surgeons, which has been an experience that i really enjoyed. bc of this, i think that i may want to go into surgery. thus, my other question for you is - how is it viewed if an applicant has a general idea of what specialty they want to go into? i understand that obviously at this stage in our lives we dont know anywhere near enough to know what specialty we want to pursue, but is it okay to express a general interest and enthusiasm for a particular specialty after extensive shadowing experience involving that specialty?

thank you so much for your time!
 
I don't fully understand. If an applicant doesn't have something specific in mind, then it's just a charade. Medicine is such a broad field that just saying you want to be a "doctor" and you're open to anything is a worthless statement. I can't think of a single thing that all docs have in common. There's no problem with changing one's mind, but to enter into 7+ years of training without specific specialties in mind seems ludicrous.

I disagree. I think that you can want to be a doctor without knowing what type. I have no idea what specialty I want to do yet, and I probably won't know until after I do several clinical rotations. There are a lot of specialties that interest me for various reasons, and I can't pinpoint one or two that really have the lead at this point. Of course there are a few specialties that I have definitely crossed off the board, but it's not many!

I interviewed several students that had specific specialties in mind and several others that had no idea. As long as a student had a good reason (i.e. they shadowed or researched extensively in that field) for preliminarily choosing a specialty before medical school, I was ok with it. However, I appreciated that other applicants were open minded.
 
I disagree. I think that you can want to be a doctor without knowing what type.

Then the real question is what does "being a doctor" mean to you?

I have no idea what specialty I want to do yet, and I probably won't know until after I do several clinical rotations. There are a lot of specialties that interest me for various reasons, and I can't pinpoint one or two that really have the lead at this point. Of course there are a few specialties that I have definitely crossed off the board, but it's not many!

It doesn't really make sense to use yourself as an example in this discussion. The "well I did it, so it's okay" doesn't address the question.

I interviewed several students that had specific specialties in mind and several others that had no idea. As long as a student had a good reason (i.e. they shadowed or researched extensively in that field) for preliminarily choosing a specialty before medical school, I was ok with it. However, I appreciated that other applicants were open minded.

At no point has it been inferred that having a specialty in mind equates to being "closed minded." Not sure why you presume that. Most will change their mind - that's a given. However, not having anything in mind in the first place doesn't make sense. If they don't have something in mind, how do they even know they want to be a physician at all? Since it sounds like you were in this boat, it would be nice to hear your answer to this.
 
Thank you for your time on sharing your perspectives and answering questions. I skimmed through from the beginning of this thread, but I apologize in advance if it has been asked somewhere.

I understand that you are looking for "maturity, passion, determination and preparedness" in interviews. But how should we approach to questions like "How unique/special are you?" and "Why should we pick you?"

Is a good answer simply reiterating an applicant's strengths/key experiences/activities/motivations? If not, what is it or what are you looking for?

What are some of good and bad answers to such questions?
 
Where do you see the field in 5, 10, 20, etc years? I guess what I'm really trying to ask is if there are there any challenges to your job security in the future?

Is cardio a male-dominated field? At our hospital, I think there is only one female cardio physician and there are no female peds cardio physicians. If it is, do you think that will change any time soon? At least to being more 50/50? Why do you think the ratio is the way it is?

Thanks for answering! If I was forced to choose a specialty based on classes, I would choose cardio. I feel like it's the only physiology I actually understood this year.
 
I don't fully understand. If an applicant doesn't have something specific in mind, then it's just a charade. Medicine is such a broad field that just saying you want to be a "doctor" and you're open to anything is a worthless statement. I can't think of a single thing that all docs have in common. There's no problem with changing one's mind, but to enter into 7+ years of training without specific specialties in mind seems ludicrous.

There's nothing wrong with saying in an interview, "I'm really interested in psychiatry", or "I think that surgery sounds intriguing", as long as you can provide a well thought-out answer when you're asked "Why?". But often applicants will make statements like "I'm interested in pediatric transplant surgery", and are unable to back that statement up with a reason. Those applicants may often come across as immature. Personally, I'd rather hear an applicant say that "there are several fields of medicine that sound fascinating, and the multitude of possible career choices is one of the things that draws me to medicine."
 
I disagree. I think that you can want to be a doctor without knowing what type. I have no idea what specialty I want to do yet, and I probably won't know until after I do several clinical rotations. There are a lot of specialties that interest me for various reasons, and I can't pinpoint one or two that really have the lead at this point. Of course there are a few specialties that I have definitely crossed off the board, but it's not many!

I interviewed several students that had specific specialties in mind and several others that had no idea. As long as a student had a good reason (i.e. they shadowed or researched extensively in that field) for preliminarily choosing a specialty before medical school, I was ok with it. However, I appreciated that other applicants were open minded.

Well said.
 
OP:

Have you heard of any physicians returning to do a fellowship after several years of practicing (post-residency)? I understand there are logistical issues with this (i.e. they are established and making a decent income and aren't excited about returning to working like a dog for low pay in a fellowship), but are there any biases against this from a fellowship director's standpoint? It seems like everyone plows straight through.

There ARE physicians that return to training after years as an attending, but it's not common. I don't think there are biases against them, though there may be a little bit of concern that someone who has been "calling the shots" for several years may have difficulty taking direction and following the decisions of others. Also, it may be difficult to get current LOR's, and having recent research may be a challenge for someone in private practice. With that said, it's clearly possible.
 
Why did you choose Medicine over EM?

Internal medicine residency opened the door for many fellowship opportunities, and since I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to do at the beginning of my 4th year of MS, medicine seemed like the logical choice. I also wanted to have some continuity with my patients, and didn't want to be a "jack of all trades, and master of none," so I decided against EM.
 
how much is shadowing doctors valued as a part of clinical experience, if at all? what about shadowing surgeons? is that considered less-so since there's not much doctor-patient interaction to observe in shadowing a surgeon?

im asking because most of my shadowing experience has been shadowing surgeons, which has been an experience that i really enjoyed. bc of this, i think that i may want to go into surgery. thus, my other question for you is - how is it viewed if an applicant has a general idea of what specialty they want to go into? i understand that obviously at this stage in our lives we dont know anywhere near enough to know what specialty we want to pursue, but is it okay to express a general interest and enthusiasm for a particular specialty after extensive shadowing experience involving that specialty?

thank you so much for your time!

Shadowing is definitely a valuable experience; not only does it help you decide if medicine is right for you, and what fields you might be interested in, but it also shows the admission committee that you're dedicated to the career choice and have put some effort into making the right decision. Volunteer work and research are valuable in similar ways.

If you're interested in surgery, you're already a step ahead. Definitely discuss with your interviewer(s) about your experiences, and what draws you to surgery. Just maintain an open mind.
 
Where do you see the field in 5, 10, 20, etc years? I guess what I'm really trying to ask is if there are there any challenges to your job security in the future?

Is cardio a male-dominated field? At our hospital, I think there is only one female cardio physician and there are no female peds cardio physicians. If it is, do you think that will change any time soon? At least to being more 50/50? Why do you think the ratio is the way it is?

Thanks for answering! If I was forced to choose a specialty based on classes, I would choose cardio. I feel like it's the only physiology I actually understood this year.

Reimbursement cuts are going to pose challenges to the job security for all physicians in the future. How so, I can't answer.

Cardiology IS male dominated, but not by choice or conspiracy. There are not enough women applying for cardiology. I presume it's because the lifestyle of cardiology is perceived to be poor, but I think that's somewhat of a myth. Those attracted to cardiology are often Type-A people who can't "shut it off", and the difficult lifestyle is, in my opinion, often self-imposed. I know many outstanding female cardiologists who balance a great career with a full personal life, and are very happy.
 
Do you think physicians who work in a hospital see more interesting cases then a physician working in a private office?

I'm just remembering back to a time when I went to see a cardiologist and it was a private office owned by several cardiac physicians. It seemed as if most of the people there were all outpatient stuff.

Is that what its like for a cardiologist, or any doctor, in private practice? Or do private physicians still have contracts with hospitals and go see inpatients on certain days?

Sorry if its a dumb question, I'm a bit clueless on how that works.
 
Thank you for your time on sharing your perspectives and answering questions. I skimmed through from the beginning of this thread, but I apologize in advance if it has been asked somewhere.

I understand that you are looking for "maturity, passion, determination and preparedness" in interviews. But how should we approach to questions like "How unique/special are you?" and "Why should we pick you?"

Is a good answer simply reiterating an applicant's strengths/key experiences/activities/motivations? If not, what is it or what are you looking for?

What are some of good and bad answers to such questions?

I hate to sound like Mr Rogers (ask your parents if you don't know who he is), but you ARE unique; if you don't know how so, do some soul-searching, or ask the opinions of those close to you. You really have to know your strengths and be ready to discuss them proudly. Knowing what it is about you that will make you a good physician isn't only important for the interview process, but for you're development as a physician as well. Self-insight and awareness is a big part of what demonstrates maturity to the interviewer.

Good answer:
"I have strong deductive reasoning skills. My math and physics background make me a problem solver, and I enjoy piecing together pieces of data to find logical solutions"

Not so good answer:
"I'm a hard worker"


Good answer:
"I'm empathetic and am acutely aware when others are unhappy or suffering. My ability to relate to the difficulties others are experiencing will help me relate to my patients."

Not so good answer:
"I like helping people"
 
Do you think physicians who work in a hospital see more interesting cases then a physician working in a private office?

I'm just remembering back to a time when I went to see a cardiologist and it was a private office owned by several cardiac physicians. It seemed as if most of the people there were all outpatient stuff.

Is that what its like for a cardiologist, or any doctor, in private practice? Or do private physicians still have contracts with hospitals and go see inpatients on certain days?

Sorry if its a dumb question, I'm a bit clueless on how that works.

I would say that acute illnesses in the hospital are often more interesting, but probably about 1/3 or more of the "interesting cases" present themselves in the outpatient setting.

Private physicians usually don't have contracts with hospitals, though that is changing, and more and more physicians are finding themselves working for hospitals. Traditionally, physicians have "privileges" in hospitals, and will see their patients in the hospital when they're admitted. Physicians may have privileges at several hospitals. They're not paid by the hospitals, but act as independent providers, using the hospital as a vessel to provide care. Again, that is slowly shifting. In addition, as a condition for maintaining privileges, physicians often have to take "call" for the hospital, during which time they agree to see patient's who don't have a physician. Specialists also are available for consultative services, and may be called by a primary hospital physician, or "hospitalist", to assist in the care of a patient.
 
Thank you for your response.

Yes, I completely agree with you that self-awareness is a part of how to show one's maturity. But sometimes I just felt that "I'm empathetic" and "I'm a problem solver" sound as cliche as "I want to help others."

Of course, I could bring up some examples and experiences to explicate further; however, the overall theme of being empathetic, solving problems, and collaborating with others seems not as unique.

For instance, if I was asked that question now, I would have said: "I was bullied in school during my childhood and became aware when others are suffering or needs help, because I can see myself in those people. I knew how I felt when I was suffering and needed help while others were apathetic towards me. I can often relate their difficulties to mine, and I hope to do the same with my patients. At the same time, as a math major, I love to tackle real world problems, as I worked on, for example, hydro turbines and sand water filters overseas to address the energy and water problems for several years. I enjoy gathering information, engaging with the locals, and putting pieces of puzzles together. I hope to apply such skills in finding logical, realistic solutions in medical settings."

To me, experiences seem special; however, the theme of being empathetic and solving problems is not as unique to interviewers, because they encounter many applicants with similar qualities, like another applicant who's a physics major sitting next to me. I think this is where I struggle to find a good answer.




I hate to sound like Mr Rogers (ask your parents if you don't know who he is), but you ARE unique; if you don't know how so, do some soul-searching, or ask the opinions of those close to you. You really have to know your strengths and be ready to discuss them proudly. Knowing what it is about you that will make you a good physician isn't only important for the interview process, but for you're development as a physician as well. Self-insight and awareness is a big part of what demonstrates maturity to the interviewer.

Good answer:
"I have strong deductive reasoning skills. My math and physics background make me a problem solver, and I enjoy piecing together pieces of data to find logical solutions"

Not so good answer:
"I'm a hard worker"


Good answer:
"I'm empathetic and am acutely aware when others are unhappy or suffering. My ability to relate to the difficulties others are experiencing will help me relate to my patients."

Not so good answer:
"I like helping people"
 
Thank you for your response.

Yes, I completely agree with you that self-awareness is a part of how to show one's maturity. But sometimes I just felt that "I'm empathetic" and "I'm a problem solver" sound as cliche as "I want to help others."

Of course, I could bring up some examples and experiences to explicate further; however, the overall theme of being empathetic, solving problems, and collaborating with others seems not as unique.

For instance, if I was asked that question now, I would have said: "I was bullied in school during my childhood and became aware when others are suffering or needs help, because I can see myself in those people. I knew how I felt when I was suffering and needed help while others were apathetic towards me. I can often relate their difficulties to mine, and I hope to do the same with my patients. At the same time, as a math major, I love to tackle real world problems, as I worked on, for example, hydro turbines and sand water filters overseas to address the energy and water problems for several years. I enjoy gathering information, engaging with the locals, and putting pieces of puzzles together. I hope to apply such skills in finding logical, realistic solutions in medical settings." This is a good unique experience, well fleshed out, personal, and applies to medicine.

To me, experiences seem special; however, the theme of being empathetic and solving problems is not as unique to interviewers, because they encounter many applicants with similar qualities, like another applicant who's a physics major sitting next to me. I think this is where I struggle to find a good answer.

See bold
 
3. Don't rely too much on clinical rotations to make a decision. You have to try to foresee what your life's going to be like. Following around an intern on a medicine or surgery rotation gives you little insight into what that field is really like. Talk to attendings. There are several good (though cynical) books on choosing a specialty. Read 1-2 of them. If you don't know what you want to do, choose a more general residency (medicine, surgery), and once you're in training, you can decide where you want to sub-specialize.

Could you please recommend a couple of such books that you mentioned?
I have a few specialties in mind but would like to know more. Thank you!
 
I am interested in cardiology particularly interventional cardiology, but I am also interested in working in epidemiologic research and prevention. Do you think that this combo is possible? do you think is weird to want to work in prevention yet want to be a specialist? thanks again for taking the time to do this🙂
 
What's your work setting? (hospital, private, academia)
What's your daily schedule like?
How much of your time/effort is devoted towards clinical diagnostic work and how much is devoted to procedural work?
 
i am interested in cardiology particularly interventional cardiology, but i am also interested in working in epidemiologic research and prevention. Do you think that this combo is possible? Do you think is weird to want to work in prevention yet want to be a specialist? Thanks again for taking the time to do this🙂

+1!
 
Thanks a lot for doing this, HeartDoc. I have some personal questions; I am currently a 24 year old junior pursuing a four-year in business administration. I have taken my general chemistry prerequisites (A-'s) and am motivated to do well with my other prerequisities. I botched my first 1.5 years with plenty of F's and W's. After that I joined the military and have since brought my GPA up to a 3.3. The trend is upward but not as strong as I would like.

Would it look bad if I were to take both physics classes during the next two summers at my old CC?- I will be returning to my old CC regardless to retake some classes I received C's in, mainly accounting. I am wanting to take physics at the same time because it will speed up the process of graduating with my four year as well as fulfilling the science prerequisites. I still plan on taking OChem and Biology at my state school.

How do you perceive someone that takes nonessential classes that do not count towards their major/prerequisities?- For instance, I have already fulfilled my foreign language requirement through French. How would I look if I took two or more semesters of Latin for fun? I am likely to do very well as I generally excel in foreign language classes. Would you pass me off as trying to buff up my GPA?

Always seems to be one botched class a semester- I'm really trying to gain momentum through an upward trend. However, I still seem to do rather poorly in about one class every semester. The past two semesters have been statistics(C+ and this semester a W), the semesters before that have been random classes. I've heard that interviewers see this as an inability to devise a proper workload. Is that the case? If so, how bad will this count against me if I am unable to fix it?

Thanks again.
 
Hi, would you mind sharing how you did on your boards as well as how you prepared for your clinical rotations. Is it all just sucking up to the resident/attending or are you actually allowed to help on some of the procedures etc. Thanks so much!
 
Hi, would you mind sharing how you did on your boards as well as how you prepared for your clinical rotations. Is it all just sucking up to the resident/attending or are you actually allowed to help on some of the procedures etc. Thanks so much!

There's no secret to preparing for rotations; you must read, a LOT, before each one. As every year there are new "best books", it's a good idea to ask those senior to you who did well in each rotation what they used to study. I suggest at least 2 books for each rotation: one that you can read (the NMS series was good when I was in school), and the other that you can use to test yourself (like the Recall series). Again, there may be better, newer books that I'm not aware of, so ask around.

Don't suck up. We hate that. Know your stuff. Pre-round, and know more about your patients than anyone on the team. Then read about their diagnoses (ALL of them, not just their reason for admission). Never complain. Never make excuses. Be present, always. Don't run off to read; when you need to read, or have time during down-time, read in the residents' workrooms or nurses stations, where you can be seen and are always available. Be the first to arrive, and the last to leave. When it's your turn to present on rounds, don't read off your H&P or daily notes (your attending probably knows how to read). Presenting a patient is how doctors communicate, and your presentation should be just that; communication rather than a book report. What you say (and don't say) during your presentation is how you demonstrate that you understand what is or is not important to the patient's clinical picture; too much information, and you'll appear lost. Not enough information, and you'll appear lazy and unprepared.

When there are procedures to do, ask. If your intern or resident needs to do them (they'll usually get a shot at the experience first, unless they've done that procedure enough times), ask if you can observe. If you don't get the first LP, you'll probably get the 2nd. Be willing to do any procedure, even something as minor as a blood draw or ABG, and don't wait to be asked. Volunteer enthusiastically.

As far as my scores are concerned, I was always a very good test taker and hard studier, so my scores were consistently in the high 90th percentiles. But if your scores aren't there, thats ok. Some phenomenal residents are often only mediocre test takers, and as long as your scores are solid, your evals and clinical performance can take you a long way.
 
Thanks a lot for doing this, HeartDoc. I have some personal questions; I am currently a 24 year old junior pursuing a four-year in business administration. I have taken my general chemistry prerequisites (A-'s) and am motivated to do well with my other prerequisities. I botched my first 1.5 years with plenty of F's and W's. After that I joined the military and have since brought my GPA up to a 3.3. The trend is upward but not as strong as I would like.

Would it look bad if I were to take both physics classes during the next two summers at my old CC?- I will be returning to my old CC regardless to retake some classes I received C's in, mainly accounting. I am wanting to take physics at the same time because it will speed up the process of graduating with my four year as well as fulfilling the science prerequisites. I still plan on taking OChem and Biology at my state school.

How do you perceive someone that takes nonessential classes that do not count towards their major/prerequisities?- For instance, I have already fulfilled my foreign language requirement through French. How would I look if I took two or more semesters of Latin for fun? I am likely to do very well as I generally excel in foreign language classes. Would you pass me off as trying to buff up my GPA?

Always seems to be one botched class a semester- I'm really trying to gain momentum through an upward trend. However, I still seem to do rather poorly in about one class every semester. The past two semesters have been statistics(C+ and this semester a W), the semesters before that have been random classes. I've heard that interviewers see this as an inability to devise a proper workload. Is that the case? If so, how bad will this count against me if I am unable to fix it?

Thanks again.

1. Try to take your physics at a university rather than a CC if you can. You don't want to look like you're taking the easy way out.

2. Latin is hard. No one is going to think that you took that to "buff up your GPA".

3. Based on what you've said, if I were looking at your application, I'd be worried that you're unable to handle a rigorous workload. "W's" to me are a red flag. You need to show the admissions committees that you can perform at a consistent level, in all of your classes, for several semesters in a row. If you find it difficult to get into medical school based on your past performance, you may be one that benefits from one of the post-baccalaureate medical programs or Master's degree programs. These may give you a second chance to prove you can succeed academically, but beware: these are often "do or die" programs, and if you don't do well, your chance at getting accepted becomes slim.
 
Shadowing is definitely a valuable experience; not only does it help you decide if medicine is right for you, and what fields you might be interested in, but it also shows the admission committee that you're dedicated to the career choice and have put some effort into making the right decision. Volunteer work and research are valuable in similar ways.

If you're interested in surgery, you're already a step ahead. Definitely discuss with your interviewer(s) about your experiences, and what draws you to surgery. Just maintain an open mind.
thank you so much for answering!

i have a follow up question though - if my experience shadowing surgeons has really solidified for me my desire to go into medicine and it is something i am really interested in (throughout my shadowing experience i have and continue to read a lot about the procedures i see and current research the surgeons i am shadowing are doing/have done regarding these procedures) can i mention it in my personal statement? i do want to express my genuine interest in this area of medicine in my personal statement though i do feel that i shouldnt focus so much on one specialty or ramble on about it in my personal statement? any advice would be appreciated. thank you so much again!
 
What's your work setting? (hospital, private, academia)
What's your daily schedule like?
How much of your time/effort is devoted towards clinical diagnostic work and how much is devoted to procedural work?

I'm the chief of cardiology for an HMO. A few years back, I was in private practice for a year, and before that was in an academic position at a large military teaching hospital.

Procedural work IS often clinical diagnostic work, but I think I know what you mean. I spend about 40% of my time seeing patients in clinic, 40% doing procedures and seeing hospital inpatients/consults, and 20% doing administrative work.

Here's a typical day:
I usually start in the hospital at 7:45 to 8am, if there are patients that need to be seen in the morning. Otherwise, I go directly to the clinic.
Clinic usually starts at 8:30.
I see patients until around 12-12:30.
Often I have a lunch meeting.
In the afternoon, I usually have 2-3 procedures to do. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
I see my hospital patients in between and after my procedures.
When I'm done in the hospital, I often go back to the office to read echocardiograms, stress tests, etc.
Sometimes I have an afternoon meeting, interview, etc.
My day ends anywhere from 4:30pm to 6:30 pm depending on the day. Average is around 6pm. Of course, if someone is crashing, if may be later, but that will often go to the "on call" cardiologist.
 
I am interested in cardiology particularly interventional cardiology, but I am also interested in working in epidemiologic research and prevention. Do you think that this combo is possible? do you think is weird to want to work in prevention yet want to be a specialist? thanks again for taking the time to do this🙂

This is possible, and nothing is "weird", as one of the best things about a career in medicine is that you can often carve your own path. But unless you're in an academic environment or a large HMO, you may find it challenging to establish yourself in preventative medicine and still have time to maintain a busy enough clinical practice to main to your intervention skills. Your goals will likely require you to remain in an academic setting.
 
thank you so much for answering!

i have a follow up question though - if my experience shadowing surgeons has really solidified for me my desire to go into medicine and it is something i am really interested in (throughout my shadowing experience i have and continue to read a lot about the procedures i see and current research the surgeons i am shadowing are doing/have done regarding these procedures) can i mention it in my personal statement? i do want to express my genuine interest in this area of medicine in my personal statement though i do feel that i shouldnt focus so much on one specialty or ramble on about it in my personal statement? any advice would be appreciated. thank you so much again!

Of course. If you want a career in surgery, then by all means, talk about it. Just approach medicine with an open mind, because there are a lot of great specialties out there that you've yet to be exposed to. As I've said in previous posts, I would avoid claiming that you want to be a "minimally invasive pediatric cardiothoracic surgeon", but expressing an interest in surgery is perfectly fine.
 
Thank you for your response.

Yes, I completely agree with you that self-awareness is a part of how to show one's maturity. But sometimes I just felt that "I'm empathetic" and "I'm a problem solver" sound as cliche as "I want to help others."

Of course, I could bring up some examples and experiences to explicate further; however, the overall theme of being empathetic, solving problems, and collaborating with others seems not as unique.

For instance, if I was asked that question now, I would have said: "I was bullied in school during my childhood and became aware when others are suffering or needs help, because I can see myself in those people. I knew how I felt when I was suffering and needed help while others were apathetic towards me. I can often relate their difficulties to mine, and I hope to do the same with my patients. At the same time, as a math major, I love to tackle real world problems, as I worked on, for example, hydro turbines and sand water filters overseas to address the energy and water problems for several years. I enjoy gathering information, engaging with the locals, and putting pieces of puzzles together. I hope to apply such skills in finding logical, realistic solutions in medical settings."

To me, experiences seem special; however, the theme of being empathetic and solving problems is not as unique to interviewers, because they encounter many applicants with similar qualities, like another applicant who's a physics major sitting next to me. I think this is where I struggle to find a good answer.

I think your answer is excellent.
 
1) I read somewhere, it might have been here, that at some point, all students will have to choose between medicine and surgery. Do you believe this to be true?

2) I read your tips on how to get through the clinical years and make a solid impression. Any advice on how to do well in the pre-clinical years? Also, some medical students say that the first two years are "basically useless." Do you find this to be true?
 
  1. What is the most impressive change you've seen in a reapplicant?
  2. What kind of changes do you expect to see in an reapplicant?
  3. Has a reapplicant ever wowed you simply by changing his personal statement? I ask this question because you mentioned earlier that everyone is unique, and if we can find that, it definitely works in our favor.
  4. What should a reapplicant do before an upcoming cycle to secure an acceptance?
Bet you can't guess if I'm a reapplicant or not :laugh:
 
1) I read somewhere, it might have been here, that at some point, all students will have to choose between medicine and surgery. Do you believe this to be true?

2) I read your tips on how to get through the clinical years and make a solid impression. Any advice on how to do well in the pre-clinical years? Also, some medical students say that the first two years are "basically useless." Do you find this to be true?

1. Sure. That occurs somewhere around the beginning of your fourth year of med school.

2. I'm surprised you've heard anyone say this. The first two years are NOT useless AT ALL, for the following reasons:
a. The preclinical years are what provide the foundation of medical knowledge that will last you for your career. This is when you learn the "language" of medicine. Anatomy, physiology, pathology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology will teach you what you need to know during the clinical years, residency, and beyond.
b. All of USMLE Step I, and a lot of Step II and III test you on what you'll learn in the classroom.
c. A lot of what you'll be asked on rounds during the clinical years and during residency will have been taught to you during the preclinical years. If your attending understands the basic sciences, shouldn't you?

What they may have been implying is that the preclinical GRADES are less important, but this isn't true either. First, while it's true that a good performance in your rotations may compensate somewhat for marginal preclinical grades, the competitive residency programs will be looking at how you did throughout all of medical school. Second, at the time your Dean's letter is written and you're applying for residency, you may only have only completed 8-9 rotations, and therefore more than 50% of your class standing will still be determined by your preclinical grades. Finally, for most people, their classroom grades predict how well someone will do on the boards.

To be successful in the preclinical years, here's my advice: NEVER fall behind. If you can, be ahead, by reading about the upcoming lecture BEFORE the lecture is given. Take notes on the reading assignments in the way of making study sheets that you can memorize. You're going to have to memorize a TON of information, so come up with an efficient system early on. A lot of what you're going to memorize is minutia, and since you won't know (at least initially) what details are really important or what you're going to be asked in the exams, you're going to have to memorize as much of it as you can. Unfortunately, the minutia is often the easiest information to test, and it's the best way for exam-creators to separate the "Honors" students from the rest. I've seen some people on this forum suggest that you shouldn't go to class, but I disagree. You can often identify what details to focus on during your studying based on the content of the lecture. Some lecturers will stick to the syllabus or text, but others will provide additional information that is often on the exams. Unfortunately you won't know which is the case until after the lecture is over. Develop a study system early, and be disciplined about sticking to it. Don't rely too heavily on study groups; they're often an inefficient use of time. Avoid the trap of "taking it easy" for a few days right after exams -- that's when people often fall behind. Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint.
 
  1. What is the most impressive change you've seen in a reapplicant?
  2. What kind of changes do you expect to see in an reapplicant?
  3. Has a reapplicant ever wowed you simply by changing his personal statement? I ask this question because you mentioned earlier that everyone is unique, and if we can find that, it definitely works in our favor.
  4. What should a reapplicant do before an upcoming cycle to secure an acceptance?
Bet you can't guess if I'm a reapplicant or not :laugh:

1. Post-bacc programs often change an application's strength significantly. Grades are often improved, and I've seen MCAT scores skyrocket. Those are the applications that I've seen improve the most.

2. A re-applicant's application should address the weaknesses that were present in the first application. Most people know what was weak about their application. Were your LOR's sub-par? Did a weak MCAT performance improve? If your grades were marginal, have you done something to improve your GPA? Have you now been involved in research, or worked in a hospital? Some people don't get accepted to medical school simply because they applied to the wrong schools, or not enough schools. If that's not the case, and you haven't addressed your weakness, why bother re-applying?
 
Since you've given great advice in regards to mastering the pre-clinical and clinical years, would you also happen to have advice on how to do well on step 1? I know it's a little early to think about this, but I have really appreciated your advice thus far.
 
To what extent does medical school reputation/ranking (amongst MD schools) matter?
 
Last edited:
2. I do heart catheterizations, TEE's (a special type of echocardiogram in which the heart is examined via a probe in the esophagus), implant pacemakers, defibrillators, cardioversions (a procedure where I use electricity to shock the heart into a normal rhythm, stress tests, and a few others.


Thanks for your time with this thread, your information is very interesting and helpful.

What has been your experience been like interacting with interventional radiology, procedural wise? Are there turf battles with certain procedures or is there a certain line drawn somewhere on who does what where you practice? How do you feel about it as a specialty compared to interventional cards or cardiology in general?
 
Top