Could my EC be a Greater Barrier than Benefit?

[Paramagnetic]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello all,

We often tout the importance of "bringing something else to the table" in our applications. I enjoy writing about politics and submitting my essays for publication in papers. I don't have extreme views and my perspective is nearly moderate.

The attempts of my writing are to create new political narratives by connecting dots that haven't been before (sort of in the way the traditional news does, but more 'academically' minded). My writings don't normally restate typical talking points, instead they attempt to craft a new 'ideological lens' through which a situation can be perceived.

I am concerned that writing of politics in any way whatsoever is bound to rub somebody the wrong way. I feel like, when reviewing my application, ADCOMS will check out an article with a perspective they disagree with and pass me up for not necessarily matching the political mindset of their ideal student.

Should I continue writing and try to excel at this, or forgo it for something less risky?

 

[ready2go2]

When it comes time to write about this activity on your application (whether in work/activities section or PS) you should focus less on your political affiliation/specifics of the narratives and more about the writing and publishing papers aspect of the EC. I don't necessarily think writing about politics will rub someone the wrong way, rather showcasing blatant disrespect for differing opinions will. Its all about how you frame it.

 

[Mad Jack]

What you are writing about could absolutely turn off an adcom. If I were, for instance, looking through someone's file and they came up as writing really preachy SJW stuff or really far right opinions, either way they'd end up in the trash, unless issues were approached objectively. Journalists, like physicians, should be measured and objective in their approach, and a failure to do so (or outright opinion piece writing) isn't my cup of tea.

 

[vellez]

When it comes time to write about this activity on your application (whether in work/activities section or PS) you should focus less on your political affiliation/specifics of the narratives and more about the writing and publishing papers aspect of the EC. I don't necessarily think writing about politics will rub someone the wrong way, rather showcasing blatant disrespect for differing opinions will. Its all about how you frame it.

This. You can write about your EC without talking about your political leanings. Unless you submit articles to like "Communist Weekly" or some Cato institute journal or something.

 

[mimelim]

This. You can write about your EC without talking about your political leanings. Unless you submit articles to like "Communist Weekly" or some Cato institute journal or something.

Your point about not bringing politics into your application is well taken and as with everything on an application, you need to be tactful, but... Being a a scholar/writer for the Cato institute would be a pretty large boost to any application at any MD school in the US. It is a pretty big deal and a fairly good mark of excellence/productivity to be working for them, regardless of your political leanings. My suspicion is that if you are grouping the Cato institute with a fictitious "Communist Weekly", you don't know what it is.

 

[Paramagnetic]

I like what's being said here and will continue with my writing. However it's important to note that there are plenty of respectable publication who are known to have a slant. If I *theoretically* was published in the Wall Street Journal for something, AdComs will (at least subconsciously) assume I am to the right of center. So just because you're not writing for outrageously named papers, spouting nonsense, wont make your work undetectable from an intelligent person's bias-detector.

Also, some of my writing is OpEds. I don't think this necessarily makes them crazy. The reader is just meant to understand that the author is attempting to persuade them.

I don't want to report news, I want to draft new narratives with roots in raw facts. There will always be some bias in my writing, but so long as respect (and accurate representation of) the opposing view is given, are AdComs that likely the be peeved if they disagreed with my work?

I feel like *this* can be my area - something that makes me different than other applicants. I don't like how inherently controversial it is 🙁

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

I like what's being said here and will continue with my writing. However it's important to note that there are plenty of respectable publication who are known to have a slant. If I *theoretically* was published in the Wall Street Journal for something, AdComs will (at least subconsciously) assume I am to the right of center. So just because you're not writing for outrageously named papers, spouting nonsense, wont make your work undetectable from an intelligent person's bias-detector.

Also, some of my writing is OpEds. I don't think this necessarily makes them crazy. The reader is just meant to understand that the author is attempting to persuade them.

I don't want to report news, I want to draft new narratives with roots in raw facts. There will always be some bias in my writing, but so long as respect (and accurate representation of) the opposing view is given, are AdComs that likely the be peeved if they disagreed with my work?

I feel like *this* can be my area - something that makes me different than other applicants. I don't like how inherently controversial it is 🙁

I think the take away point is not to discuss any of the political leanings directly in your application, but to stick solely to describing the papers you published and the writing process, etc. I don't think someone could justify your publishing in the Wall Street Journal as a negative??

 

[vellez]

Your point about not bringing politics into your application is well taken and as with everything on an application, you need to be tactful, but... Being a a scholar/writer for the Cato institute would be a pretty large boost to any application at any MD school in the US. It is a pretty big deal and a fairly good mark of excellence/productivity to be working for them, regardless of your political leanings. My suspicion is that if you are grouping the Cato institute with a fictitious "Communist Weekly", you don't know what it is.

I'm sorry you weren't able to pick up on the fact that I was making an example. However prestigious the Cato institute is, it still could inject polarizing politics unnecessarily into an application.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm sorry you weren't able to pick up on the fact that I was making an example. However prestigious the Cato institute is, it still could inject polarizing politics unnecessarily into an application.

No he knows you're making an example. The issue here is you have zero idea what the Cato Institute is and what it does. There really isn't anything polarizing about working for Cato Institute.

 

[mimelim]

I'm sorry you weren't able to pick up on the fact that I was making an example. However prestigious the Cato institute is, it still could inject polarizing politics unnecessarily into an application.

Pretty obvious that you were trying to make an example. Should have also been pretty obvious that at least in my opinion you did a ****ty job because it is a piss poor example. Unless you do something unnecessarily stupid and aren't tactful at all, simply being affiliated with the Cato institute is not going to harm your application. Your argument is a bit silly. Working at a hospital could "inject polarizing politics" into an application if you start talking about abortion rights. Now, right or wrong, if you write about your time working for Storm Front, THAT would potentially sink you.

 

[vellez]

No he knows you're making an example. The issue here is you have zero idea what the Cato Institute is and what it does. There really isn't anything polarizing about working for Cato Institute.

I actually think you have no idea what the Cato institute is. It CLEARLY takes a position or political stand, which is what I was saying was bad, since you do not know how your reviewers will think of the position of that organization.

 

[Lawpy]

I actually think you have no idea what the Cato institute is. It CLEARLY takes a position or political stand, which is what I was saying was bad, since you do not know how your reviewers will think of the position of that organization.

Come on man, don't try to deflect and shift blame on me. You claimed that working for them is polarizing, which it's not (can an adcom member disagree with the stance? sure, but it's not polarizing). You are wrong on the matter, and using that as an example with some fictitious entity like Communist Weekly weakens your argument.

Working for the Cato Institute is actually a respectable opportunity regardless of political affiliation. So, you should look more into it since it's clear that you don't know what it is. And it's fine. That's how we learn new things.

 

[timetraveling]

This thread devolved into a fight about what the Cato Institute is by the 3rd reply. (PS: this is why r/premed ****s on us all the time) OP, I'm sorry that happened. I hope you can use this insight:

If your articles are data-driven (like fivethirtyeight for example) or do not take radical views--defund PP, Obama is from Africa, free college, anything that is deemed conventionally extreme, like these things--you should be fine. Journalism deals with a lot of deadlines and word restrictions and I think that speaks to the applicant's work ethic. I also think taking your own free time to delve into thought and craft something shows hunger for education. I think you should include it in your application but be as least specific as possible as to the content matter.

I used to be a political science major and have written things myself, so if you need help feel free to PM

 

[LizzyM]

There are physicians at both ends of the political spectrum. Schools do want a variety of opinions at the table and I would not expect your writing to hurt your application. However, if you want to play it safe, you can continue to write and just not list it on your application but that would be a pity because it seems like the most unusual and interesting thing most readers/interviewers would see that day (if not the most unusual EC of the week).

 

[wizzed101]

There are physicians at both ends of the political spectrum. Schools do want a variety of opinions at the table and I would not expect your writing to hurt your application. However, if you want to play it safe, you can continue to write and just not list it on your application but that would be a pity because it seems like the most unusual and interesting thing most readers/interviewers would see that day (if not the most unusual EC of the week).

Just like a salad... but which side of the spectrum is under represented in medicine?

 

[Saifa]

The fact that you tagged "political correct" indicates that this isn't exactly as innocent as it may sound.

 

[Lawpy]

This thread devolved into a fight about what the Cato Institute is by the 3rd reply. (PS: this is why r/premed ****s on us all the time) OP, I'm sorry that happened. I hope you can use this insight:

If your articles are data-driven (like fivethirtyeight for example) or do not take radical views--defund PP, Obama is from Africa, free college, anything that is deemed conventionally extreme, like these things--you should be fine. Journalism deals with a lot of deadlines and word restrictions and I think that speaks to the applicant's work ethic. I also think taking your own free time to delve into thought and craft something shows hunger for education. I think you should include it in your application but be as least specific as possible as to the content matter.

I used to be a political science major and have written things myself, so if you need help feel free to PM

1. There was a disagreement, not a fight. The issue was a bad example, but everyone agrees with the underlying point.

2. No one cares what r/premed thinks.

 

[Paramagnetic]

The fact that you tagged "political correct" indicates that this isn't exactly as innocent as it may sound.

1. My SDN profile isn't linked to me IRL at all. I don't have an interest in lying on here.

2. Political correctness is *very* relevant to, uhh, politics. Depending on how strongly the people you're talking with feel, pointing out scientific differences between the genders could be perceived as being politically incorrect.

Actually, I'm sure somebody who's looking for it could find something 'wrong' with my example using gender.

I made this thread because I know people are quick to raise eyebrows at anything with a political slant. I'm nowhere near the attitudes of Breitbart, but I'm not exactly EverydayFeminism/Buzzfeed material either.

 

[oogieboogie123r]

The fact that you tagged "political correct" indicates that this isn't exactly as innocent as it may sound.

People are always an awful judge of how biased they are. I would not recommend talking about politics.

But then again, it might be me - I can hardly think of a way you could write an essay about politics without it sounding biased in some way. What exactly would you be writing (or saying) about it, OP? Can you give us an example?

 

[Saifa]

Political correctness is *very* relevant to, uhh, politics. Depending on how strongly the people you're talking with feel, pointing out scientific differences between the genders could be perceived as being politically incorrect.

Actually, I'm sure somebody who's looking for it could find something 'wrong' with my example using gender.

I made this thread because I know people are quick to raise eyebrows at anything with a political slant. I'm nowhere near the attitudes of Breitbart, but I'm not exactly EverydayFeminism/Buzzfeed material either.

9/10 times "political correctness" is a term used by people who did something blatantly ignorant to a marginalized group and then are too immature to accept responsibility for it, instead blaming "PC culture" that got their poor egos bruised in the first place. Now, I'm not out to call you immature or ignorant without even knowing you, but you ARE trying to stay out of hot water here. When I was growing up, people complained about "political correctness" when a situation was a bit too modest for comfort, nowadays it's often angry white dudes mad that they can't say the 'n' word or use racist imagery without criticism.

 

[Goro]

On the flip side, there are actual, living,breathing caricatures of political correctness, like those who scream about "cultural appropriation".

The way Der Trumppenfuhrer complains about PC....that's spot on for your definition though.

9/10 times "political correctness" is a term used by people who did something blatantly ignorant to a marginalized group and then are too immature to accept responsibility for it, instead blaming "PC culture" that got their poor egos bruised in the first place. Now, I'm not out to call you immature or ignorant without even knowing you, but you ARE trying to stay out of hot water here. When I was growing up, people complained about "political correctness" when a situation was a bit too modest for comfort, nowadays it's often angry white dudes mad that they can't say the 'n' word or use racist imagery without criticism.

 

[Pusheen]

1. My SDN profile isn't linked to me IRL at all. I don't have an interest in lying on here.

2. Political correctness is *very* relevant to, uhh, politics. Depending on how strongly the people you're talking with feel, pointing out scientific differences between the genders could be perceived as being politically incorrect.

Actually, I'm sure somebody who's looking for it could find something 'wrong' with my example using gender.

I made this thread because I know people are quick to raise eyebrows at anything with a political slant. I'm nowhere near the attitudes of Breitbart, but I'm not exactly EverydayFeminism/Buzzfeed material either.

I'm sure adcoms know that you have political opinions. Just be respectful and thoughtful in your articles, and I don't see what the issue is. I'm sure adcoms are mature enough to handle it, provided you aren't spewing extremist views.

If someone became offended at me because of the examples you gave I probably couldn't have a meaningful conversation with them anyways.

 

[Paramagnetic]

9/10 times "political correctness" is a term used by people who did something blatantly ignorant to a marginalized group and then are too immature to accept responsibility for it, instead blaming "PC culture" that got their poor egos bruised in the first place. Now, I'm not out to call you immature or ignorant without even knowing you, but you ARE trying to stay out of hot water here. When I was growing up, people complained about "political correctness" when a situation was a bit too modest for comfort, nowadays it's often angry white dudes mad that they can't say the 'n' word or use racist imagery without criticism.

This is a more nuanced issue than you see it as

 

[Paramagnetic]

People are always an awful judge of how biased they are. I would not recommend talking about politics.

But then again, it might be me - I can hardly think of a way you could write an essay about politics without it sounding biased in some way. What exactly would you be writing (or saying) about it, OP? Can you give us an example?

A recent article I wrote attempted to view America's political landscape through the 'lens' of populists vs establishment figures (this was when Sanders was still competitive). I didn't directly advocate for anybody (though bias towards Clinton[the establishment] could have been implied), I just made my case against the populists (Sanders and Trump).

Sort of used the Hobbein idea of a "State of Nature" as grounds for sticking with the establishment.

Referring to Thomas Hobbes, by the way.

 

[Saifa]

This is a more nuanced issue than you see it as

I'd like to believe it, but perhaps I am jaded.

 

[timetraveling]

1. There was a disagreement, not a fight. The issue was a bad example, but everyone agrees with the underlying point.

2. No one cares what r/premed thinks.

It is beyond me how someone could disagree with you--how dare them

 

[Lawpy]

It is beyond me how someone could disagree with you--how dare them

? i'm fine with disagreements, but I point out when things are clearly wrong. And I'm not the only one here who pointed out the error, so your post really doesn't make sense.

 

[timetraveling]

? i'm fine with disagreements, but I point out when things are clearly wrong. And I'm not the only one here who pointed out the error, so your post really doesn't make sense.

I was making fun of you for being arrogant.

 

[LizzyM]

Just like a salad... but which side of the spectrum is under represented in medicine?

It depends on the speciality. And the evidence was published recently. Press and psych are at one end and anesthesia and surgery at the other IIRC.

 

[Lawpy]

I was making fun of you for being arrogant.

thanks 😢😢

but i think we digressed enough and can agree with the overall point made. I think you said it well early on:

If your articles are data-driven (like fivethirtyeight for example) or do not take radical views--defund PP, Obama is from Africa, free college, anything that is deemed conventionally extreme, like these things--you should be fine. Journalism deals with a lot of deadlines and word restrictions and I think that speaks to the applicant's work ethic. I also think taking your own free time to delve into thought and craft something shows hunger for education. I think you should include it in your application but be as least specific as possible as to the content matter.

I used to be a political science major and have written things myself, so if you need help feel free to PM

 

[BombsAway]

A recent article I wrote attempted to view America's political landscape through the 'lens' of populists vs establishment figures (this was when Sanders was still competitive). I didn't directly advocate for anybody (though bias towards Clinton[the establishment] could have been implied), I just made my case against the populists (Sanders and Trump).

Sort of used the Hobbein idea of a "State of Nature" as grounds for sticking with the establishment.

Referring to Thomas Hobbes, by the way.

Can we all just agree that Bernie was the one that got away?

 

[Paramagnetic]

Can we all just agree that Bernie was the one that got away?

Nope 😉