dismissed DO student

[Mass Effect]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I agree that "real life" accomplishments should be met before medical school. Clinical experience, volunteering, work in general, etc. Anything besides solely academics. Medical schools do "ok" with this, but because academics overshadow this aspect so much, the bare minimum of EC's is still highly acceptable in the med school world.

You're completely missing the point. By "real life," you're referring to anything and everything medical. I'm referring to the REAL WORLD. Volunteering to bring ice chips to pregnant ladies on the maternity ward is a far cry from getting job where you're actually paid to show up, on time, be competent, and communicate with people. Volunteering and "clinical experience" is checking boxes. Working to pay your way through college is real world.

I'm not saying English majors can't do well in Med. school or that bioengineering students will do phenomenal.

The point I'm trying to get across is that Medical Schools need to remember the foundation of every class they offer, and that's of science. It's entirely logical to believe that a bioengineering major with a similar GPA (or even slightly worse) than a non-science major will do better in medical school. This isn't rocket science.

Medical schools should emphasize science more than they do. It ill prepares students for the medical school curriculum to pretend a non-science degree shows as much competence in science as a science degree. Again, not rocket science.

Are you really a pre-med lecturing the rest of us on the curriculum in medical school and then condescendingly reminding us it isn't rocket science? Seriously?

 

[Robin-jay]

@Robin-jay

People with science major might have some advantage at the beginning, but it does not go as far as you might think. For instance, genetics is a 1-wk course in med school, biochem is like 6-8wk course. I can give many other examples. Classes that might take a whole semester in traditional undergrad, med school does not spent a lot of time teaching them. I remember one classmate who has a MPH at a top 10 MPH program told us our 6-7 hrs biostats course was covered during a whole semester in his MPH program.

Just because the coursework is shorter and more excelled, doesn't mean that science is less significant. That's almost an argument on why it's so important.

My argument is a simple one. I personally believe medical schools should have more of an emphasis for accepting people with arduous science backgrounds as opposed to their non-science counterparts.

 

[Robin-jay]

You're completely missing the point. By "real life," you're referring to anything and everything medical. I'm referring to the REAL WORLD. Volunteering to bring ice chips to pregnant ladies on the maternity ward is a far cry from getting job where you're actually paid to show up, on time, be competent, and communicate with people. Volunteering and "clinical experience" is checking boxes. Working to pay your way through college is real world.



Are you really a pre-med lecturing the rest of us on the curriculum in medical school and then condescendingly reminding us it isn't rocket science? Seriously?

I agree with the real life statements.

I'm not being condescending.

 

[W19]

Just because the coursework is shorter and more excelled, doesn't mean that science is less significant. That's almost an argument on why it's so important.

My argument is a simple one. I personally believe medical schools should have more of an emphasis for accepting people with arduous science backgrounds as opposed to their non-science counterparts.

That's why I said there is some advantage being a science major but med school cover most of these stuff in the first 2-3 months with some clinical context... After that everyone is swimming against the current.

 

[Robin-jay]

That's why I said there is some advantage being a science major but med school cover most of these stuff in the first 2-3 months with some clinical context... After that everyone is swimming against the current.

I do not disagree.

 

[W19]

Just because the coursework is shorter and more excelled, doesn't mean that science is less significant. That's almost an argument on why it's so important
My argument is a simple one. I personally believe medical schools should have more of an emphasis for accepting people with arduous science backgrounds as opposed to their non-science counterparts.

You do realize the first two years is arguably the least important part of being a physician... In fact, most countries do not cover in such details the 1st 2 years as we do in the US.

 

[Robin-jay]

You do realize the first two years is arguably the least important part of being a physician... In fact, most countries do not cover in such details the 1st 2 years as we do in the US.

I agree. But my point is you still need that science foundation. And so medical schools should choose someone they think can handle science.

I have no doubt that the third and fourth year are most significant.

 

[W19]

I agree. But my point is you still need that science foundation. And so medical schools should choose someone they think can handle science.

I have no doubt that the third and fourth year are most significant.

You are making a big leap here. Being a humanity major does not say anything about one's ability to handle science. If someone does well Bio 1/2, gen chem 1/2, orgo 1/2 and physics 1/2, that is clearly an indication that individual can handle science courses...

Maybe we can find a study online about attrition rate of science major vs. nonscience major in med school. Too lazy to look for it now.

 

[Robin-jay]

You are making a big leap here. Being a humanity major does not say anything about one's ability to handle science. If someone does well Bio 1/2, gen chem 1/2, orgo 1/2 and physics 1/2, that is clearly an indication that individual can handle science courses...

Maybe we can find a study online about attrition rate of science major vs. nonscience major in med school. Too lazy to look for it now.

You right, being a humanity major doesn't say anything about one's ability to handle science.

But why take the chance? Medical schools can (and in my opinion, probably should) pick someone who has shown they can handle rigorous science courses.

I would love to see a study like that. The best you could hope for is that humanity majors are on par with science majors (as a whole).

 

[W19]

You right, being a humanity major doesn't say anything about one's ability to handle science.

But why take the chance? Medical schools can (and in my opinion, probably should) pick someone who has shown they can handle rigorous science courses.

I would love to see a study like that. The best you could hope for is that humanity majors are on par with science majors (as a whole).

http://www.nacadajournal.org/doi/pdf/10.12930/0271-9517-17.1.32?code=naaa-site

In the discussion (page 40)

'The results indicated that once an applicant with a degree in a nonscience field was accepted he or she could successfully compete with other medical students as determined by standard measures of achievement in medical school. Type of major did not contribute a statistically significant amount toward the prediction of medical school performance over what could be predicted by preadmission measures such as MCAT scores, undergraduate GP As, and undergraduate college selectivity.'

 

[Robin-jay]

http://www.nacadajournal.org/doi/pdf/10.12930/0271-9517-17.1.32?code=naaa-site

In the discussion (page 40)

'The results indicated that once an applicant with a degree in a nonscience field was accepted he or she could successfully compete with other medical students as determined by standard measures of achievement in medical school. Type of major did not contribute a statistically significant amount toward the prediction of medical school performance over what could be predicted by preadmission measures such as MCAT scores, undergraduate GP As, and undergraduate college selectivity.'

The study says what the study says. It does't say they will equally well (but very close), see statistic below.

"The percentage of science majors who did not graduate was 5.3% (n = 86), and the percentage of nonscience majors who did not graduate was 6.1 %."

The OP did not have adequate science experience, and then was dismissed because of it. This would not have happened if they had been exposed to more science courses. So while the article says there isn't a difference, there's at least one example of evidence showing otherwise just in this thread.

If you forced me to choose between two equal candidates but one has a science degree and the other one didn't, I have to choose the science major because of the science courses one will have to go through in medical school.

 

[Mass Effect]

The OP did not have adequate science experience, and then was dismissed because of it. This would not have happened if they had been exposed to more science courses.

Says who? Many things determine success in med school and science experience beyond the basics is not one of them. Even bioengineering majors can fail out.

 

[Robin-jay]

Says who? Many things determine success in med school and science experience beyond the basics is not one of them. Even bioengineering majors can fail out.

Yes, but all else equal, who is more likely to fail out.

 

[W19]

The study says what the study says. It does't say they will equally well (but very close), see statistic below.

"The percentage of science majors who did not graduate was 5.3% (n = 86), and the percentage of nonscience majors who did not graduate was 6.1 %."

The OP did not have adequate science experience, and then was dismissed because of it. This would not have happened if they had been exposed to more science courses. So while the article says there isn't a difference, there's at least one example of evidence showing otherwise just in this thread.

If you forced me to choose between two equal candidates but one has a science degree and the other one didn't, I have to choose the science major because of the science courses one will have to go through in medical school.

OP was dismissed because he did not have adequate science experience! No... He was dismissed because he failed classes--not because of his science background.

 

[Robin-jay]

OP was dismissed because he did not have adequate science experience! No... He was dismissed because he failed classes--not because of his science background.

Could have been a major factor. OP admits to not taking multiple rigorous science courses at the same time prior to medical school. Point is, more science and less humanities may have been more beneficial...

(I do hope the OP gets back into med. school).

 

[Mass Effect]

Yes, but all else equal, who is more likely to fail out.

Med schools, thankfully, don't think the way you do. They make decisions based on who will be a good doctor. Maybe wait to have this argument after you've actually been through the process.

 

[W19]

Yes, but all else equal, who is more likely to fail out.

Well, I already posted a study about that. I think MCAT score might be better predictor... who knows

 

[Robin-jay]

Well, I already posted a study about that. I think MCAT score might be better predictor... who knows

MCAT is goofy. It's a great standard between all applicants. But sometimes people get real goofy results. One guy got a 503 one test, retook and got a 493. Is it a better predictor, idk.

I don't really think there are perfect predictors of medical school, which is why so many factors are considered.

 

[Robin-jay]

Med schools, thankfully, don't think the way you do. They make decisions based on who will be a good doctor. Maybe wait to have this argument after you've actually been through the process.

I think its spectacular different ADCOMs think differently. Some emphasize EC's more, some cGPA, some sGPA, some MCAT score, some volunteering, some this, some that.

I think that causes many parts of the application process to be considered and this is why it takes a whole committee to make the decision.

 

[W19]

MCAT is goofy. It's a great standard between all applicants. But sometimes people get real goofy results. One guy got a 503 one test, retook and got a 493. Is it a better predictor, idk.

I don't really think there are perfect predictors of medical school, which is why so many factors are considered.

Thanks for making our point...

 

[Robin-jay]

Thanks for making our point...

My point was taking two equal applicants, and choosing between the science major and nonscientific major.

My point was not centered around the "holistic" view of the applicant, which I do agree, is important.

 

[Melchizedek]

http://www.nacadajournal.org/doi/pdf/10.12930/0271-9517-17.1.32?code=naaa-site

In the discussion (page 40)

'The results indicated that once an applicant with a degree in a nonscience field was accepted he or she could successfully compete with other medical students as determined by standard measures of achievement in medical school. Type of major did not contribute a statistically significant amount toward the prediction of medical school performance over what could be predicted by preadmission measures such as MCAT scores, undergraduate GP As, and undergraduate college selectivity.'

We're waaaaaay off topic but

Been lurking on this thread. Just want to point out that if you're going to use a research study to back up and argument, it probably shouldn't be from over 20 years ago.

That being said:
SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT
Exploring the consequences of combining medical students with and without a background in biomedical sciences

So yes, having a science background helps in the beginning, but you can see that in the long run both groups STEM background and non-STEM background end up converging. Thats the mark of good medical education.

Would a science background have helped OP understand the material better? Maybe? From reading the OP's posts it sounds like it was study skills and approach to the material that may have been the issue. If someone comes into medical school with successful strategies of how to tackle science heavy material that may give them a slight advantage. But you can have all the science background in the world and still not perform well if you don't adapt study habits that match med school coursework v.s. undergrad coursework (in any major).

 

[W19]

We're waaaaaay off topic but

Been lurking on this thread. Just want to point out that if you're going to use a research study to back up and argument, it probably shouldn't be from over 20 years ago.

That being said:
SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT
Exploring the consequences of combining medical students with and without a background in biomedical sciences

So yes, having a science background helps in the beginning, but you can see that in the long run both groups STEM background and non-STEM background end up converging. Thats the mark of good medical education.

Would a science background have helped OP understand the material better? Maybe? From reading the OP's posts it sounds like it was study skills and approach to the material that may have been the issue. If someone comes into medical school with successful strategies of how to tackle science heavy material that may give them a slight advantage. But you can have all the science background in the world and still not perform well if you don't adapt study habits that match med school coursework v.s. undergrad coursework (in any major).

I know... Was being lazy.

 

[Melchizedek]

I know... Was being lazy.

You can give sass or be lazy. Not both.

 

[Giovanotto]

You do realize the first two years is arguably the least important part of being a physician... In fact, most countries do not cover in such details the 1st 2 years as we do in the US.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Lawpy]

Very sorry to hear of your woes, but you must lose this mindset....whether you failed by one point, or 50, you failed to display even a minimal amount of competency, much less mastery, of the material.

I wish you well, but always have a Plan B.

Who told you that you would "most likely be reinstated"? Sometimes people have a habit of hearing what they want to hear, and unless you have some particular connections or the school has some sort of vested interest in you, why would they roll the dice on you twice? Every single DO school in the country is getting thousands of applications, it just doesn't make sense for them to fill a seat with a student who has already failed out once.

I'm telling you this, not to crush your dreams, but to help you with your plans. It is extremely rare for a student who has failed out that badly to be reinstated. I have seen it a total of one time, and this student completed a fairly intense masters degree with excellent grades, and even then they struggled when they got back and failed the boards the first time. Whatever plans you make to further study should have a solid "Plan B" in place as to what you will do if you don't get back in.

And if your school is genuinely interested in taking you back, I would absolutely run your plan by them and get their input. This will be a good test to see if they really want you back or may have said something you took the wrong way that made you more optimistic than you should be.

But that's the whole point...the OP needs to demonstrate that s/he can handle med school. This is the best way of doing so. High risk, but high reward.

Personally, I think OP had his/her chance, and now it's time to move on.

I agree here and OP should follow the above advice when planning out the next steps.

 

[W19]

Wrong on both counts.

Well, I might be wrong on the first count, but most physicians will agree with me since they voice the same sentiment. But I know I am right on the second count since I am familiar with medical school system in south/central America, the Caribbean, Europe and Africa.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

My point was taking two equal applicants, and choosing between the science major and nonscientific major.

My point was not centered around the "holistic" view of the applicant, which I do agree, is important.

There's no scenario like this. If I interviewed you and your hallmark achievement was being able to cram or apply an equation to something you crammed then I'd reject both of you equally. Medicine requires mental flexibility and a strong ability to play with facts and integrate material based on a bedrock of good reading comprehension and being able to talk to people.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

We're waaaaaay off topic but

Been lurking on this thread. Just want to point out that if you're going to use a research study to back up and argument, it probably shouldn't be from over 20 years ago.

That being said:
SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT
Exploring the consequences of combining medical students with and without a background in biomedical sciences

So yes, having a science background helps in the beginning, but you can see that in the long run both groups STEM background and non-STEM background end up converging. Thats the mark of good medical education.

Would a science background have helped OP understand the material better? Maybe? From reading the OP's posts it sounds like it was study skills and approach to the material that may have been the issue. If someone comes into medical school with successful strategies of how to tackle science heavy material that may give them a slight advantage. But you can have all the science background in the world and still not perform well if you don't adapt study habits that match med school coursework v.s. undergrad coursework (in any major).

After you finish year 1 it's all literally the same. Unless you literally were a doctor in another country or another life you are literally on equal grounds academically. The thing that differentiates you is whether you were taught how to think and process material.

 

[Robin-jay]

There's no scenario like this. If I interviewed you and your hallmark achievement was being able to cram or apply an equation to something you crammed then I'd reject both of you equally. Medicine requires mental flexibility and a strong ability to play with facts and integrate material based on a bedrock of good reading comprehension and being able to talk to people.

Of course there is no scenario like this. Saying something like "all else equal, I'd choose the 509 MCAT person over the 505 MCAT guy" is still a reasonable statement. What it's inferring, is that the science degree is slightly more important than a non-science one.

 

[Mass Effect]

Wrong on both counts.

How is he wrong?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Of course there is no scenario like this. Saying something like "all else equal, I'd choose the 509 MCAT person over the 505 MCAT guy" is still a reasonable statement. What it's inferring, is that the science degree is slightly more important than a non-science one.

Apparently your degree didn't teach you how to make good jokes, because this was a really bad one.

No, as much as I imagine it will hurt you to realize this. A M.S in chemistry is so far detached from medicine that you may as well have gotten it in how to fold paper origami. It's simply neither impressive nor does it offer you even a remote foundation in how to process pathology or later memorize algorithms for how to treat conditions.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

But that's the great thing about medicine. You're going to relearn how to think and how to approach the material. So don't preoccupy yourself with what you were before. You'll be entirely different by the end.

 

[Goro]

Of course there is no scenario like this. Saying something like "all else equal, I'd choose the 509 MCAT person over the 505 MCAT guy" is still a reasonable statement. What it's inferring, is that the science degree is slightly more important than a non-science one.

Why are we discussing fool's errands? Med school admissions is not a zero sum game, except in the minds of the stats-besotted.

And how exactly will this thread detour help the OP????

 

[Robin-jay]

Apparently your degree didn't teach you how to make good jokes, because this was a really bad one.

No, as much as I imagine it will hurt you to realize this. A M.S in chemistry is so far detached from medicine that you may as well have gotten it in how to fold paper origami. It's simply neither impressive nor does it offer you even a remote foundation in how to process pathology or later memorize algorithms for how to treat conditions.

I've had enough in person chats with ADCOMs to know where my degree stands, and I respectfully disagree with your assessment of it.

 

[Robin-jay]

Why are we discussing fool's errands? Med school admissions is not a zero sum game, except in the minds of the stats-besotted.

And how exactly will this thread detour help the OP????

I think the OP should take an SMP (as said in my previous posts) because I believe it will help them do well in a med. school curriculum and also help for re-admissions.

 

[Goro]

I think the OP should take an SMP (as said in my previous posts) because I believe it will help them do well in a med. school curriculum and also help for re-admissions.

IF OP is boning to get readmitted, this would be his/her best chance.

 

[W19]

If OP wants to practice medicine, he/she can become a NP. Nothing is wrong with that.

 

[Mass Effect]

Orrrr the OP can try to get back in without the SMP. I did.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I've had enough in person chats with ADCOMs to know where my degree stands, and I respectfully disagree with your assessment of it.

Your fragility is annoying.

 

[Robin-jay]

Your fragility is annoying. Also I don't care what random PhDs think.

and MDs*

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think the OP should take an SMP (as said in my previous posts) because I believe it will help them do well in a med. school curriculum and also help for re-admissions.

IF OP is boning to get readmitted, this would be his/her best chance.

I disagree. They need to figure out why they failed and not do it again. And if they realize that they simply don't have the raw horsepower for it, then there are plenty of other fields for them.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I feel bad for derailing the thread further but its a point I've always wanted to state on the topic but not found the right thread to state it.

It is not so much not working hard enough or not loving the material enough as to why people don't succeed academically in law school, medical school etc. It stems from something more basic, "how to learn." The US education system does a garbage job of doing this. People are taught to read a books and if they don't get it, well teachers and parents love to state "you just didn't study enough." Then you enter a situation where the amount to study is so vast that those extra hours you had suddenly disappear (cough.. medical school!). Study techniques aren't taught to students and so later in life they either figure it out themselves and do well or they don't and give up education. Even simple techniques like "comparison and contrast" between topics or the "memory palace technique" or even pomodoro, could radically change efficiency in learning. It can turn a 4 hours study session for a high schooler into a 1 hour study session. Of course there are teachers, mentors, or more senior students that tell you these things, but none of them are taught in a formal setting. This is why we never discover how we best learn and truly tap into our full potential.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I feel bad for derailing the thread further but its a point I've always wanted to state on the topic but not found the right thread to state it.

It is not so much not working hard enough or not loving the material enough as to why people don't succeed academically in law school, medical school etc. It stems from something more basic, "how to learn." The US education system does a garbage job of doing this. People are taught to read a books and if they don't get it, well teachers and parents love to state "you just didn't study enough." Then you enter a situation where the amount to study is so vast that those extra hours you had suddenly disappear (cough.. medical school!). Study techniques aren't taught to students and so later in life they either figure it out themselves and do well or they don't and give up education. Even simple techniques like "comparison and contrast" between topics or the "memory palace technique" or even pomodoro, could radically change efficiency in learning. It can turn a 4 hours study session for a high schooler into a 1 hour study session. Of course there are teachers, mentors, or more senior students that tell you these things, but none of them are taught in a formal setting. This is why we never discover how we best learn and truly tap into our full potential.

This is true. This is why we have variations in class rank. If it was simply how much work we put it, everyone would have a 270.
But this only goes so far. I'll be honest in saying that probably most people aren't failing out of medical school because they're too inherently lacking in cognitive capacities or concrete thinking or even abstraction. It's simply more often than not they're not putting in the time.

It doesn't matter if you are a dunce by virtue of who you are now. You choose to either put in the time to make up for your lack of gifts or you don't. I have no talent utterly for many things, I don't shy away, I put the time into making them strengths.

In the end though I think there's also some level of accepting that not everyone is a fit for medicine too.

 

[starri]

I'm not saying English majors can't do well in Med. school

Ahem.

 

[Iris42]

If you truly want to rebrand yourself and you truly have figured out how to study and want to match somewhere decent.....Talk to the program director of the graduate studies in your med school and see if you can do a Masters degree doing research in a lab within the department of Internal Medicine. This way you make connections, hopefully get a publication or two and can match Internal Med somewhere.
Sure it'll take you 2 years instead of one, but it's much easier to sell this to a PD than "I failed and then took undergrad courses for 1 year..."

 

[Vrachika]

I have a suggestion for OP that I don't think has been discussed yet (admittedly skimmed through the second page of posts). While doing well in an SMP would undoubtedly prove you could handle medical school, it is expensive and high risk. The most important thing here is to simulate how busy you are in medical school so you learn time management/efficiency with studying. Maybe try having a full time job, taking 2-3 (difficult) undergrad science classes, and completing a certain amount of self study time a week (and make sure you stick to the study hours you say you will, or else consider you may not be able to cut it).

This is essentially what I did before coming to med school (though replace self study with some ECs) and while it's definitely not exactly the same as your only job being drinking from the med school firehose, I definitely learned time management and effective study skills from it. I wouldn't go as far to say medical school has been easier than doing all that, but I feel like I do have slightly more free time and I definitely didn't have as steep a learning curve on time management/effective study as some of my peers did. The added benefit of this plan is that instead of shelling out tens of thousands for an SMP, you get to make a little money too.

Now, I may be totally wrong about this being a suitable alternative plan, and others can correct me if I am, but just thought I would offer an alternative to SMP or choose a different career. You could even do this for a semester or two, then go on to an SMP if it goes well.

 

[68PGunner]

I have a suggestion for OP that I don't think has been discussed yet (admittedly skimmed through the second page of posts). While doing well in an SMP would undoubtedly prove you could handle medical school, it is expensive and high risk. The most important thing here is to simulate how busy you are in medical school so you learn time management/efficiency with studying. Maybe try having a full time job, taking 2-3 (difficult) undergrad science classes, and completing a certain amount of self study time a week (and make sure you stick to the study hours you say you will, or else consider you may not be able to cut it).

This is essentially what I did before coming to med school (though replace self study with some ECs) and while it's definitely not exactly the same as your only job being drinking from the med school firehose, I definitely learned time management and effective study skills from it. I wouldn't go as far to say medical school has been easier than doing all that, but I feel like I do have slightly more free time and I definitely didn't have as steep a learning curve on time management/effective study as some of my peers did. The added benefit of this plan is that instead of shelling out tens of thousands for an SMP, you get to make a little money too.

Now, I may be totally wrong about this being a suitable alternative plan, and others can correct me if I am, but just thought I would offer an alternative to SMP or choose a different career. You could even do this for a semester or two, then go on to an SMP if it goes well.

Yup, I would highly recommend this possibility. The bottom line is that OP has to simulate and succeed in the hectic stressful med school environment in order to show to admin that he/she is a changed person.

 

[Goro]

They need to figure out why they failed and not do it again.

This goes without saying.

 

[Goro]

This is true. This is why we have variations in class rank. If it was simply how much work we put it, everyone would have a 270.
But this only goes so far. I'll be honest in saying that probably most people aren't failing out of medical school because they're too inherently lacking in cognitive capacities or concrete thinking or even abstraction. It's simply more often than not they're not putting in the time.

It doesn't matter if you are a dunce by virtue of who you are now. You choose to either put in the time to make up for your lack of gifts or you don't. I have no talent utterly for many things, I don't shy away, I put the time into making them strengths.

In the end though I think there's also some level of accepting that not everyone is a fit for medicine too.

At my school and others, we find that the #1 reason we lose students to withdrawal, dismissal or LOA is to unresolved mental health issues. This can include a lack of coping skills to outside life events.

I'd say the second most common reason is what you refer to, and that's probably due to their not wanting to be in med school in the first place. Never underestimate the damage that Tiger Parents (who come in all sizes, shapes and colors) can do to people's careers.

Very few people fail med school because they lack the metal firepower...although I suspect this might be an issue at newer DO schools.