duke's second question

just be very vague. Thats what I did. Quick into, discuss some issues, and summarize.

 

i would pick one.

 

yea its a tough one. Rest of the application is OK though. How is everyone fairing on it Anyone done yet.

 

haven't even started!

i phoned them to ask about their prereq within 7 year requirement. they gave me an e-mail address. i wrote and asked the lady how strict the requirement is and never heard back. hopefully she's just on vacation. if not, i think i'm going to forget duke entirely and maybe add another school to my list. i think it's a little silly for schools to give such long secondaries when they know how many schools we're applying to. if every school had the same number of essays as duke, we'd never finish our apps. a couple of essays or short answer are fine, but i think duke went overboard.

 

To answer someones question from above, I think all we need to do is identify the critical issues raised by these technologies and how it relates to patients i guess, Who the f knows actually. I don't know if we should take a stand one side or the other. What is everyone else doin?

 

If it's the same question as last year, and I don't know if it is, it is important to read the question carefully. Here's the 2nd question from last year, and I highlighted the important parts of the question:

The scientific and popular news media have heralded several ?life-extending? and ?life-altering? technologies ? among which are embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, genetic intervention, and organ transplantation. While such technologies represent remarkable developments and applications of our emerging scientific understanding, these technologies raise critical issues with respect to the ethics, morality and economics of these technologies. Identify some of the critical issues evoked by such technologies and address what potential moral, theological, and ethical questions might arise from the decisions made regarding developing and using these technologies in the care of patients (5000 characters)

 

Less is more. Do what the question says. Identify the issues, address the questions. Don't get stuck in what side of the issue is the moral one or what the correct answer is. They want to see if you can identify, understand, and explain multiple viewpoints.

 

Diogenes I got a great idea. Lemme se what your wrote. That way I know what they are looking for

 

You really want to see? I don't think I want to get nailed for helping someone plagarize. Sorry. Besides, I got an interview but I didn't get in, so my answer couldn't have been the end-all, be-all response.

 

I also interpreted this question in that we should not present our own opinions about any of these issues, but instead explain the arguments for and against each of these technologies. I see nothing wrong, however, with identifying that a particular argument is consisent with your particular moral belief system or religion, but I wouldn't focus too much on this. I would definitely avoid arguing that any argument is absolutely true. This I think will appear presumptious to the adcoms--all of these issues are extremely complex and a medical school applicant wouldn't be expected to have the answers to them.

I havn't completed any of the questions yet for this secondary. Another question that seems really difficult is the "strengths and weaknesses" question. How would our lack of experiences or weaknesses contribute to the makeup of next year's class?

 

So is this essay question basically like a research paper? Well to me it kinda is because I don't really know much about this kinda stuff. (I know that's bad. And yes I am ashamed ) Cuz they're not really asking how you feel about it, but rather what are the general issues that arise. To me it seems like you're just supposed to spit out facts on what kind of issues these technologies raise. Just wondering if anyone else sees the question like this.

 

I did as well. I am think of turning in a Work Cited page with this essay.