Do I explicitly include a tie-back to medicine in secondaries?

[moltmannfanboi]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm currently prewriting secondaries for the upcoming cycle and wanted to make sure that I wasn't shooting myself in the foot by not tying every prompt back to medicine. For example, Columbia asks: Please describe your most meaningful leadership positions. (300 words)
I think that I can meaningfully fit two leadership experiences here without being too constrained for space. I'm a nontraditional student and have significant leadership experience in my current (non-clinical) job. I also have significant leadership experience from a non-clinical volunteering experience. It would be a stretch to describe any of my clinical experience as leadership and I think that the other roles result in much stronger writing.

Do schools expect me to explicitly tie this back to medicine or what I think good qualities in a physician are? Or does the context of being on a medical school secondary make that assumed? I assume adcoms know what good traits are in a physician and so a formulaic, "and I hope to apply this when working with patients," or, "these are the qualities that I intend to carry forward as a physician," is just a waste of characters and an insult to their intelligence.

Basically, if I successfully show a direct answer to the prompt, without a tie to medicine, am I leaving anything on the table that I should be doing?

 

[Goro]

Just answer the question.

Not everything has to be about Medicine.

 

[moltmannfanboi]

I assume this goes hand in hand with other advice that I've seen that, "adcoms know what makes a good physician, you don't need to tell them what qualities *you* think make a good physician."

 

[LunaOri]

I assume this goes hand in hand with other advice that I've seen that, "adcoms know what makes a good physician, you don't need to tell them what qualities *you* think make a good physician."

Exactly!