Convicted Felon - Is Medical School Realistic?

[Planes2Doc]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

OP, another thing to consider is if your name shows up even on basic searches like Google. Last thing you want is to have records expunged and sealed and then once you start medical school, someone finds out you committed arson in the past and the administration gets wind of it.

Truthfully, I think you'd have an easier time getting in any other career besides physician and pharmacy (you may have licensing issues as well), but I do hope the best for you no matter what happens.

I'm confused. If it was expunged and were specifically asked not to include it on the application, then how could the school do anything?

This isn't like admitting that you fabricated ECs, had an IA that wasn't on your official record, or omitted a school transcript (assuming you weren't checked with the clearinghouse). All of these things can get you kicked out long after starting your medical school journey.

 

[darklabel]

I'm confused. If it was expunged and were specifically asked not to include it on the application, then how could the school do anything?

This isn't like admitting that you fabricated ECs, had an IA that wasn't on your official record, or omitted a school transcript (assuming you weren't checked with the clearinghouse). All of these things can get you kicked out long after starting your medical school journey.

True, but I'm always a firm believer of being safe rather than sorry kinda thing. Just best to get rid of things like that in the long run, such as when looking for employment and such. Besides, someone on admissions can randomly google an applicant if they want to and can easily reject him if they find out online before he is accepted.

 

[didymus]

You're a physician, but you're neither a lawyer, ethicist, judge or someone who seems to have had much ethics/philosophy training. Your arguments, to be blunt, are pretty darn poor. I am tempted to break apart what you've written point by weak point. We'll see if time, and my raised BP when reading your posts allow this.

 

[Life Sucks]

From a medical school perspective, the OP presents several types of liability. The fact that he will be unable to get a badge in any hospital where we train students means he cannot receive an equivalent education to his peers. If we accept him knowing that, we are open to suit from him. Even "expunged" records show up in searches initiated by government facilities (including hospitals operated by or affiliated with local, state and federal government). One can never really remove a felony conviction from the public record.

Even if we somehow overcame this, the odds of him getting a license is remote, at best. Since we also know this at the outset, we would have knowingly cost him time and money in a way far more disingenuous than the law schools currently being sued by unemployed former students.

Last, and most obvious, any subsequent bad acts will appear to have been predictable.

Wow, what happen to serving your time and being forgiven in this country?

 

[Boolean]

Wow, what happen to serving your time and being forgiven in this country?

If a murderer serves his time in prison, and he is forgiven, is he any less of a murderer? What about a thief? You receive punishments for your actions, and occasionally forgiveness. The stigma remains whether or not you like it.

 

[Life Sucks]

If a murderer serves his time in prison, and he is forgiven, is he any less of a murderer? What about a thief? You receive punishments for your actions, and occasionally forgiveness. The stigma remains whether or not you like it.

That's why our nation is screwed now versus countries like Norway and Sweden which are more into rehabilitating an inmate. How do you expect people to be members of society when you limit their roles in society. Then you wonder why they re-offend.

 

[deleted480308]

Wow, what happen to serving your time and being forgiven in this country?

"forgiven" is not really part of the criminal process and never has been, everything from 2nd ammendment rights, to professional licensing, to voting is changed by criminal records

 

[didymus]

"forgiven" is not really part of the criminal process and never has been, everything from 2nd ammendment rights, to professional licensing, to voting is changed by criminal records

Exactly. Sex offenders, for instance, must registered as such for life.

 

[bakedbeans18]

Doing time doesn't absolve someone of what they did.

I feel like several people in this thread think I'm being needlessly emotive about this, and I suppose that is true. I recently learned that for every person accepted into my class, 63 people were denied admission. Now, imagine that I have committed arson in my past. Does it seem appropriate that I would be accepted in place of 63 people who did not have a felony conviction?

I'm about second chances, dont' get me wrong. But in medical school admissions, a second chance is a postbacc for a poor undergraduate GPA, or being able to retake the MCAT for a better score. It's being able to reapply to medical school and have a fighting chance. It is not being able to waltz into one of the most privileged professions after having put lives in danger - and yes, everytime a house burns down, a team of fire trucks is sent to respond - those lives are needlessly put in danger because some kid wanted attention.

For anyone who feels I'm not in a position to judge - I'm not the one on trial here, lets keep that in mind. I've already proven myself and gotten into medical school - so I know what it takes to get this far, and as someone who had to spend considerable time redeeming themselves in multiple areas of their application, I may not know with complete certainty what will get someone into medical school (there are no guarantees, after all) but I sure as hell know the things that will keep you out. Felony conviction for arson is one of them.

Stay thirsty my friends.

 

[MedWonk]

I'm not sure it's an issue of forgiveness as it is trust and liability. I'm fine with forgiving people who've served their time, but given their hx it'll take more than just jail time to trust that person to function appropriately in civil society.

 

[studentp0x]

He could have killed somebody, multiple people infact.

It was unlikely and clearly there was no intent there to cause bodily harm.

Intent matters A LOT in the eyes of the justice system. It makes the difference between spending several years in prison vs. your entire life (manslaughter vs. murder for example).
Without the intent to physically harm anyone, and the unlikelihood of it, it isn't as bad as it sounds. The OP's brain wasn't fully developed at 17 (like most peoples) and now it is.

 

[Godspeedyou]

OP I'll be rooting for you and I expect to see this thread bumped with you saying you got into a medical school. Good luck man

 

[Boolean]

It was unlikely and clearly there was no intent there to cause bodily harm.

Intent matters A LOT in the eyes of the justice system. It makes the difference between spending several years in prison vs. your entire life (manslaughter vs. murder for example).
Without the intent to physically harm anyone, and the unlikelihood of it, it isn't as bad as it sounds. The OP's brain wasn't fully developed at 17 (like most peoples) and now it is.

He was old enough to know exactly what he was doing. He purposefully admitted to torching the house. It is in no way clear there was no intent to cause bodily harm. He lit a bloody house on fire. You don't think that in any way shows a lack of forethought? If you are going to set something on fire, there is always a chance of someone being injured, and anyone, especially a physician, should recognize that.

 

[Planes2Doc]

True, but I'm always a firm believer of being safe rather than sorry kinda thing. Just best to get rid of things like that in the long run, such as when looking for employment and such. Besides, someone on admissions can randomly google an applicant if they want to and can easily reject him if they find out online before he is accepted.

I totally agree with you. I was once talking to a family friend who is a lawyer, and he told me that it's illegal for any organization to consider a crime that was expunged. In a perfect world, this would be true. But there's this small invention that happened a while back which might make this a little difficult, the internet.

I'm from Chicago, and the major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, posts mugshots daily online. These people were just arrested. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? 🙄 I can imagine that if a pre-med was a John, and was arrested for soliciting a prostitute, that they would have their mugshot on the internet, since authorities use public shaming as punishment. Even if this pre-med went through a diversion program or had the charge expunged, I'm guessing the mugshot would still be up. Now if an ADCOM saw that via Google, I'm sure they would reject the applicant even if the charge were expunged or dismissed via diversion. In fact, there are lots of mugshot websites on the internet, which will carry one's photo even if the charges were dismissed or expunged.

I'm a firm believer of sweeping things under the rug when possible. It's far easier for the OP to get this expunged than to confront it with ADCOMs. Unless the OP has significant "redemption" ECs, I don't think he stands a chance. Now, if the OP gets this expunged, his chances are just as good as any other applicant. But, if his crime is searchable via Google, despite being expunged, I think ADCOMs will reject him. Even though that's technically illegal according to the lawyer I spoke to, medical schools can say they rejected the applicant for whatever other reason they want. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

In medical school, Google is your friend. It helps you find lots of info for the things you're studying. But if you've committed a crime and are trying to sweep it under the rug, then Google is your enemy.

 

[studentp0x]

He was old enough to know exactly what he was doing. He purposefully admitted to torching the house. It is in no way clear there was no intent to cause bodily harm. He lit a bloody house on fire. You don't think that in any way shows a lack of forethought? If you are going to set something on fire, there is always a chance of someone being injured, and anyone, especially a physician, should recognize that.

Yes but under 20 years old... the brain ain't developed. Even till mid 20s.. My point is that his decision making wasn't quite up to par, and beyond that he acted on emotion not logic.
And no one being in the house = no intent to cause harm.

 

[studentp0x]

That's why our nation is screwed now versus countries like Norway and Sweden which are more into rehabilitating an inmate. How do you expect people to be members of society when you limit their roles in society. Then you wonder why they re-offend.

murderers and rapists shouldn't be rehabilitated barring exceptions (ex. vigilantes).

 

[Boolean]

Yes but under 20 years old... the brain ain't developed. Even till mid 20s.. My point is that his decision making wasn't quite up to par, and beyond that he acted on emotion not logic.
And no one being in the house = no intent to cause harm.

We try citizens as adults when they are over a certain age threshold because we believe that their decision making skills are developed enough to know right from wrong. Setting anyones house on fire, including and especially yours is wrong.
Setting your house on fire regardless of the circumstance is additionally an intent to cause harm, regardless of whether or not it is physical harm. Someone had to pay for his actions. In this circumstance, it was his family and himself.

 

[bakedbeans18]

It was unlikely and clearly there was no intent there to cause bodily harm.

Intent matters A LOT in the eyes of the justice system. It makes the difference between spending several years in prison vs. your entire life (manslaughter vs. murder for example).
Without the intent to physically harm anyone, and the unlikelihood of it, it isn't as bad as it sounds. The OP's brain wasn't fully developed at 17 (like most peoples) and now it is.

Medical malpractice is never the product of ill intent, but it still is powerful enough to end careers and leave still practicing physicians in financial woes. That being said, the concern is an individuals judgement, not their motivation.

 

[bakedbeans18]

We try citizens as adults when they are over a certain age threshold because we believe that their decision making skills are developed enough to know right from wrong. Setting anyones house on fire, including and especially yours is wrong.
Setting your house on fire regardless of the circumstance is additionally an intent to cause harm, regardless of whether or not it is physical harm. Someone had to pay for his actions. In this circumstance, it was his family and himself.

I would say the comment by @Boolean is a game-changer, but one could argue that it's a transformation.

 

[didymus]

Yes but under 20 years old... the brain ain't developed. Even till mid 20s.. My point is that his decision making wasn't quite up to par, and beyond that he acted on emotion not logic.
And no one being in the house = no intent to cause harm.

Bro, stop--You don't know what you're talking about. Have you never heard of felony murder? If this guy's pitiful cry for attention resulted in the death of a firefighter, he would be a murderer, regardless of his intent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

 

[Boolean]

I would say the comment by @Boolean is a game-changer, but one could argue that it's a transformation.

Agreed, but the fact of the matter is that the transformation had to occur in the first place. If you say in an interview "Well, I'm no longer inclined to burn things down", the Adcoms are going to question why you had the motivation to burn things down in the first place.

 

[studentp0x]

Bro, stop--You don't know what you're talking about. Have you never heard of felony murder? If this guy's pitiful cry for attention resulted in the death of a firefighter, he would be a murderer, regardless of his intent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

lol if you actually think he'd actually be convicted of murder if a firefighter was to die. You have a poor understanding of how the justice system actually works.

Medical malpractice is never the product of ill intent, but it still is powerful enough to end careers and leave still practicing physicians in financial woes. That being said, the concern is an individuals judgement, not their motivation.

And a single case wouldn't be enough to cost someone their license unless it was over the top.

 

[bakedbeans18]

Agreed, but the fact of the matter is that the transformation had to occur in the first place. If you say in an interview "Well, I'm no longer inclined to burn things down", the Adcoms are going to question why you had the motivation to burn things down in the first place.

I was making a joke about Boolean algebra...

 

[Boolean]

I was making a joke about Boolean algebra...

It's finals week. I'm a bit out of it 😛

 

[Boolean]

lol if you actually think he'd actually be convicted of murder if a firefighter was to die. You have a poor understanding of how the justice system actually works.


And a single case wouldn't be enough to cost someone their license unless it was over the top.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...or-arsonist-convicted-of-5-murders/57851342/1

 

[Syndicate]

I'm sorry to be the one to say this but I think that with so many very qualified applicants ending up not getting into medical school, I just don't see why a medical school would choose you, who has a criminal record, over someone with the same numbers but is clean. I'm sorry but that's just the way I see it. Good luck though.

 

[taniaekal]

OP, another thing to consider is if your name shows up even on basic searches like Google. Last thing you want is to have records expunged and sealed and then once you start medical school, someone finds out you committed arson in the past and the administration gets wind of it.

Truthfully, I think you'd have an easier time getting in any other career besides physician and pharmacy (you may have licensing issues as well), but I do hope the best for you no matter what happens.

From what I understand, upon being granted an expungement, you are able to list agencies that legally MUST destroy all of your records regarding the arrest and the disposition of the case.

This is due to the fact that arrests, mugshots, and all of those other things are public records and are oftentimes given to agencies (police dept, mugshots.com, etc.) and if you petition for an expungement and have it signed off by a judge, they must destroy everything. Be very careful with this, as you want to be as thorough with it as possible, and I advise again to speak with a legal professional. Worse comes to worse, you pay the online websites to put down your image. This could cost hundreds of dollars. It is how these agencies make profit, but with an expungement order, I believe they must do it free of charge.

I believe that after expungement, the only agency that should have your information is the FBI database, but they have EVERY SINGLE ARREST and citation an individual has ever received registered in there.

I have some limited knowledge with situations like these, as I have a friend who is a lawyer and has seen many professionals (yes, including health professionals) make mistakes or have something from the past come back to haunt them. PM me if you'd like.

And please, do not let any pre-meds or medical students online bring down your spirit. Talk to somebody who actually knows what they are talking about, and get from it what you may.

Good luck!

 

[bakedbeans18]

Yes but under 20 years old... the brain ain't developed. Even till mid 20s.. My point is that his decision making wasn't quite up to par, and beyond that he acted on emotion not logic.
And no one being in the house = no intent to cause harm.

LMFAO

Oh my god, stop talking. For the love of all that is sacred on this green earth, just stop.

I didn't mean to run over my 7 year old neighbor, so I shouldn't pay any consequences for taking dad's 1978 Coupe DeVille and going for a joyride.

The OP is convinced that good came out of burning their house to the ground, because their parent's marriage was 'saved' (despite OP saying mommy and daddy are no longer in love...saved?) so it seems that their view on reality is so warped, that they may do something out of line again later down the road, and say it is justified.

 

[bakedbeans18]

From what I understand, upon being granted an expungement, you are able to list agencies that legally MUST destroy all of your records regarding the arrest and the disposition of the case.

This is due to the fact that arrests, mugshots, and all of those other things are public records and are oftentimes given to agencies (police dept, mugshots.com, etc.) and if you petition for an expungement and have it signed off by a judge, they must destroy everything. Be very careful with this, as you want to be as thorough with it as possible, and I advise again to speak with a legal professional. Worse comes to worse, you pay the online websites to put down your image. This could cost hundreds of dollars. It is how these agencies make profit, but with an expungement order, I believe they must do it free of charge.

I have some limited knowledge with situations like these, as I have a friend who is a lawyer and has seen many professionals (yes, including health professionals) make mistakes or have something from the past come back to haunt them. PM me if you'd like.

And please, do not let any pre-meds or medical students online bring down your spirit. Talk to somebody who actually knows what they are talking about, and get from it what you may.

Good luck!

Bolded: we got into medical school. Chances are we know what we're talking about.

 

[taniaekal]

Bolded: we got into medical school. Chances are we know what we're talking about.

That was directed to OP in regards to the "legal advice" he is receiving from SDN posters.

You are a medical student. You are not a lawyer. You do not know for certain what opportunities he may or may not have.

 

[bakedbeans18]

That was directed to OP in regards to the "legal advice" he is receiving from SDN posters.

You are a medical student. You are not a lawyer. You do not know for certain what opportunities he may or may not have.

I'm a god damn legend, is what I am.

 

[taniaekal]

I'm a god damn legend, is what I am.

Well, thumbs up to you! Good luck in your endeavors.

 

[touchpause13]

murderers and rapists shouldn't be rehabilitated barring exceptions (ex. vigilantes).

Now I'm trying to imagine what a vigilante rapist would look like. My brain is weird.

And you should stop trying to talk about the legal system. You are Canadian for forks sake. It's totally different over here.

 

[studentp0x]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...or-arsonist-convicted-of-5-murders/57851342/1

1) Completely different scenario, there was intent to cause direct harm

2) There's been cases of people breaking into a house, sueing the home owner, and winning. You can't use outlier cases to support your argument.

LMFAO

Oh my god, stop talking. For the love of all that is sacred on this green earth, just stop.

I didn't mean to run over my 7 year old neighbor, so I shouldn't pay any consequences for taking dad's 1978 Coupe DeVille and going for a joyride.

The OP is convinced that good came out of burning their house to the ground, because their parent's marriage was 'saved' (despite OP saying mommy and daddy are no longer in love...saved?) so it seems that their view on reality is so warped, that they may do something out of line again later down the road, and say it is justified.

Intent is the difference between a slap on the wrist (6 months in prison) vs. life in prison. It matters.

 

[studentp0x]

Now I'm trying to imagine what a vigilante rapist would look like. My brain is weird.

And you should stop trying to talk about the legal system. You are Canadian for forks sake. It's totally different over here.

You can't play around with my sentence structure and use it against me lol. I didn't mean to put vigilante rapist....

Guy rapes and murders a man's family, man kills him. Is it right to punish him with the full force of the law? I don't think anyone in their right mind would think so. As such, these cases are exceptions.
And the Canadian system isn't all that different. Judicial processes are very similar actually.

 

[Gut Shot]

In general, I am writing this to express the idea that physicians, while amazing in many ways, are not experts on everything. And can have some pretty gosh awful ideas on many things. I hope the MDs behind our names don't make us forever stubborn and unaware of our knowledge gaps.

This thread has been fascinating in its ability to bring out sanctimonious armchair psychologists.

 

[Boolean]

1) Completely different scenario, there was intent to cause direct harm

2) There's been cases of people breaking into a house, sueing the home owner, and winning. You can't use outlier cases to support your argument.



Intent is the difference between a slap on the wrist (6 months in prison) vs. life in prison. It matters.

Our legal system is defined by a series of outlier cases in America. Ever heard of an amendment to the constitution?

 

[bakedbeans18]

Now I'm trying to imagine what a vigilante rapist would look like. My brain is weird.

And you should stop trying to talk about the legal system. You are Canadian for forks sake. It's totally different over here.

O, Canada....why do we let you be a country?

1) Completely different scenario, there was intent to cause direct harm

2) There's been cases of people breaking into a house, sueing the home owner, and winning. You can't use outlier cases to support your argument.



Intent is the difference between a slap on the wrist (6 months in prison) vs. life in prison. It matters.

For your sentence, sure. For how society views your actions, including medical school? Makes no difference. The legal system and the medical school admissions system are very different, so for the sake of your credibility, stop implying there is a parallel between the two.

 

[studentp0x]

O, Canada....why do we let you be a country?



For your sentence, sure. For how society views your actions, including medical school? Makes no difference. The legal system and the medical school admissions system are very different, so for the sake of your credibility, stop implying there is a parallel between the two.

This is an argument about whether or not med school admissions should logically care enough to deny him admission IF he was to take significant action (ex. speaking to youth about the dangers of fires) to show that he's a changed individual.

 

[bakedbeans18]

This is an argument about whether or not med school admissions should logically care enough to deny him admission IF he was to take significant action (ex. speaking to youth about the dangers of fires) to show that he's a changed individual.

They wouldn't.
But what makes you so sure of that, bakedbeans18? Because for every person with a felony conviction who applies, there will be dozens upon dozens more applicants without felony convictions for whom admissions committees will not have to speculate or wonder if the applicant is no longer a risk and that the felon has learned from their mistake and changed. For those who are suggesting that many who apply to medical school have never felt 'real pressure' aside form getting a B in organic chemistry, that is irrelevant here. Applicants are evaluated in part on what their history does show, not what it doesn't show. If an admissions committee speculated 'well what happens when this person DOES fall victim to tremendous pressure, are they going to burn down a building or kill their classmate?' would just waste alot of time and nothing would ever get done.


It is often the case that if you have a very low GPA, medical school admissions committees are often unwilling to look past it. So, if medical school admissions are so unforgiving for something so inoccuous as a low GPA, do you really think they are going to just 'let this one slide' when they get to review the application of a convicted arsonist?

 

[junebug947]

It's easy to claim that people don't deserve second chances - until you're the one that needs a second chance. I think some people are getting wrapped up into whether or not there was intent, whether or not he knew what he was doing, all this stuff. The OP was 17, and he admitted that he made a mistake. You can only ask someone, "What were you thinking?!" so many times. He has already said it; he wasn't thinking. He made a mistake and he regrets it.

From my understanding of the justice system, prisons were designed as a punitive measure for crimes committed. You commit a crime, and you pay your debt to society by serving time in prison. No, society doesn't 'owe' you any special treatment, but nor do you deserve additional punishment in the form of discrimination and ostracism. The criminal justice system determines in each case what length of time is an appropriate punishment for a crime. I like to believe that the spirit of imprisonment is to provide a method for a criminal to pay for their crime and then assimilate again into society - not carry the tag of 'criminal' for the rest of their life.

As much as some people in this forum would like for the world to be black and white, that's not the case. As I said before, just because someone does a bad thing doesn't make them a bad person.

Arsonists don't deserve a second chance, regardless of the circumstances? Whether he intended to harm someone or not doesn't matter? What about a college student convicted of driving while intoxicated? Does he never deserve a second chance because of the possibility that he could have killed someone on the road? What about guy that had sex with a girl that later changed her mind about the ordeal, and who was then convicted of rape? Does he never deserve a second chance because all rapists are the same? My point is that the world isn't black and white, and saying someone doesn't deserve a chance while never having met them doesn't seem fair.

Do you think psychiatric patients don't deserve to have a life? How responsible are patients with untreated mental disorders for their actions? The OP was suffering from a mental illness and made a mistake.

 

[darklabel]

From what I understand, upon being granted an expungement, you are able to list agencies that legally MUST destroy all of your records regarding the arrest and the disposition of the case.

This is due to the fact that arrests, mugshots, and all of those other things are public records and are oftentimes given to agencies (police dept, mugshots.com, etc.) and if you petition for an expungement and have it signed off by a judge, they must destroy everything. Be very careful with this, as you want to be as thorough with it as possible, and I advise again to speak with a legal professional. Worse comes to worse, you pay the online websites to put down your image. This could cost hundreds of dollars. It is how these agencies make profit, but with an expungement order, I believe they must do it free of charge.

I believe that after expungement, the only agency that should have your information is the FBI database, but they have EVERY SINGLE ARREST and citation an individual has ever received registered in there.

I have some limited knowledge with situations like these, as I have a friend who is a lawyer and has seen many professionals (yes, including health professionals) make mistakes or have something from the past come back to haunt them. PM me if you'd like.

And please, do not let any pre-meds or medical students online bring down your spirit. Talk to somebody who actually knows what they are talking about, and get from it what you may.

Good luck!

I didn't know this, very interesting. The only problem is the internet is very good about keeping things you don't want there. Especially if they ran an article on him. While in a perfect world all these websites would take it down, I feel like such information is usually cached and I think there's a number of public shaming websites (which I think is terrible, but what can you do?).

Hopefully none of this would show up and if it does, best thing he can do is what @Planes2Doc said and pay for a service that will push that info out of web searches and hope that adcoms never go past page 2 on Google. Even if its expunged, an adcom that finds out this info will just say he was rejected because "he wasn't a fit for the school".

 

[touchpause13]

It's easy to claim that people don't deserve second chances - until you're the one that needs a second chance. I think some people are getting wrapped up into whether or not there was intent, whether or not he knew what he was doing, all this stuff. The OP was 17, and he admitted that he made a mistake. You can only ask someone, "What were you thinking?!" so many times. He has already said it; he wasn't thinking. He made a mistake and he regrets it.

From my understanding of the justice system, prisons were designed as a punitive measure for crimes committed. You commit a crime, and you pay your debt to society by serving time in prison. No, society doesn't 'owe' you any special treatment, but nor do you deserve additional punishment in the form of discrimination and ostracism. The criminal justice system determines in each case what length of time is an appropriate punishment for a crime. I like to believe that the spirit of imprisonment is to provide a method for a criminal to pay for their crime and then assimilate again into society - not carry the tag of 'criminal' for the rest of their life.

As much as some people in this forum would like for the world to be black and white, that's not the case. As I said before, just because someone does a bad thing doesn't make them a bad person.

Arsonists don't deserve a second chance, regardless of the circumstances? Whether he intended to harm someone or not doesn't matter? What about a college student convicted of driving while intoxicated? Does he never deserve a second chance because of the possibility that he could have killed someone on the road? What about guy that had sex with a girl that later changed her mind about the ordeal, and who was then convicted of rape? Does he never deserve a second chance because all rapists are the same? My point is that the world isn't black and white, and saying someone doesn't deserve a chance while never having met them doesn't seem fair.

Do you think psychiatric patients don't deserve to have a life? How responsible are patients with untreated mental disorders for their actions? The OP was suffering from a mental illness and made a mistake.

 

[Gifted Hands]

Bolded: we got into medical school. Chances are we know what we're talking about.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You sat through an interview and got an acceptance email. Relax

 

[Gifted Hands]

Everyone keeps saying no medical school would accept someone with a felony over 100s of qualified applicants... Which is 100% true because that person can't get a medical license anyway!

But if you use your reading comprehension skills you can see that's not the question. OP has to have their record expunged. If that happens, admissions doesn't have to overlook the felony because they have NO knowledge of it. He wouldn't be a felon anymore and would have a legitimate shot just like any other premed. This isn't difficult people.

 

[gyngyn]

Everyone keeps saying no medical school would accept someone with a felony over 100s of qualified applicants... Which is 100% true because that person can't get a medical license anyway!

But if you use your reading comprehension skills you can see that's not the question. OP has to have their record expunged. If that happens, admissions doesn't have to overlook the felony because they have NO knowledge of it. He wouldn't be a felon anymore and would have a legitimate shot just like any other premed. This isn't difficult people.

Even "expunged" records come up in background checks at government affiliated health care facilities. Most technical standards include a clause that the student must be eligible to train at sites with affiliation agreements.

 

[junebug947]

Even "expunged" records come up in background checks at government affiliated health care facilities. Most technical standards include a clause that the student must be eligible to train at sites with affiliation agreements.

My expunged record did not come up during the application process, nor did it come up after I was asked to complete a background check for the school at which I matriculated. It may be different when I begin residency, I suppose.

It doesn't come up in Certiphi.

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[gyngyn]

My expunged record did not come up during the application process, nor did it come up after I was asked to complete a background check for the school at which I matriculated. It may be different when I begin residency, I suppose.

It doesn't come up in Certiphi.

 

[bakedbeans18]

You have no clue what you are talking about. You sat through an interview and got an acceptance email. Relax

So everything I did to build a medical school application - every decision related to my do-goodery and my good judgement to keep any and all opportunities open - that had nothing to do with my getting into medical school? It was simply just a luck of the draw with regards to the events of my interview day? Mind = blown.

 

[lnvictus]

I've become so jaded by posts on SDN that I can't even tell if people on this site are trolling or sincerely enjoy being jerks on the internet.