Failed Premeds

[idq1i]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

You both seem to feel entitled just because you worked hard. 🙄 You never stop to think that some people worked just as hard as you or even, dare we even imagine, harder????!!!

Open up a dictionary and look up "entitled." Then look up "earned." Report back if a more thorough explanation is needed

 

[tugbug]

Open up a dictionary and look up "entitled." Then look up "earned." Report back if a more thorough explanation is needed

I think the point of the poster you quoted was pretty obvious... That many who were not accepted worked as hard as you, and therefore "earned" a spot in the same way you did. Only a committee didnt choose them. So, the difference between some of those "failures" and you is NOT work ethic, ability, or "applicant profile." Your post earlier certainly made it sound like you thought you had somehow done things better than all of the "losers" who didnt work hard enough or do well enough to get accepted... when, for at least some of those "failures", thats just not true.

 

[idq1i]

I think the point of the poster you quoted was pretty obvious... That many who were not accepted worked as hard as you, and therefore "earned" a spot in the same way you did. Only a committee didnt choose them. So, the difference between some of those "failures" and you is NOT work ethic, ability, or "applicant profile." Your post earlier certainly made it sound like you thought you had somehow done things better than all of the "losers" who didnt work hard enough or do well enough to get accepted... when, for at least some of those "failures", thats just not true.

Hey, you can toss euphemisms around all day if you want.

I certainly didn't want to suggest that I am the best there ever was. However, statements like "Deserved to get in, but didn't" suggest that some people got in undeservedly. I took umbrage at that remark, and I suggested that those that didn't get in perhaps hadn't done all that they could.

The "rolleyes" poster not only took my post out of context, but she also managed to misinterpret it

 

[tugbug]

Hey, you can toss euphemisms around all day if you want.

I certainly didn't want to suggest that I am the best there ever was. However, statements like "Deserved to get in, but didn't" suggest that some people got in undeservedly. I took umbrage at that remark, and I suggested that those that didn't get in perhaps hadn't done all that they could

I believe that their is a large group of applicants who all worked their butts off, had great stats, etc. - and all "deserve/have earned" a spot in much the same way. Some of these folks dont get accepted. Thats how the game is played. Doesnt mean they were necessarily less deserving or "failures" in any important way other than popularity with ADCOMs.

A completely separate point is that - some people do get in who are seemingly less "deserving" than some who do not... based on stats if nothing else.

 

[UseUrHeadFred]

I assume you have little confidence in the ability of medical school selection committees?

Not flaming, just interested in your view.

 

[idq1i]

Some of these folks dont get accepted. Thats how the game is played. Doesnt mean they were necessarily less deserving or "failures" in any important way other than popularity with ADCOMs.

Ok, let's take it a step further. WHAT does it mean? I submit that there were people that were more "deserving" of a spot.

The "game" is not a defensible position. Otherwise, we would have title VIII lawsuits every day

(once again, I am not arguing about my merits/demerits)

 

[tugbug]

I assume you have little confidence in the ability of medical school selection committees?

Not flaming, just interested in your view.

If this question was for me... Its not that I have "little confidence" in ADCOMs per se. I'm sure that mistakes are made... good people are sometimes passed over and applicants that dont do well are sometimes given a shot.

My point is just that the claims of some on this thread - that the "failures" who were not accepted were ALWAYS in some way inferior to the accepted. Either they didnt work hard enough, or they had lower stats, etc. It seems that some of the folks here think there is some clear difference between the best of the "unaccepted" crowd and the worst of the "accepted." I disagree with that idea.

 

[tugbug]

Ok, let's take it a step further. WHAT does it mean? I submit that there were people that were more "deserving" of a spot.

The "game" is not a defensible position. Otherwise, we would have title VIII lawsuits every day

(once again, I am not arguing about my merits/demerits)

I'm not sure I understand your question. My point is not to question whether you "deserve" your spot... it was to question the idea that ALL those who "failed" didnt "deserve" a spot. This second idea is one that several posters here seem to have.

 

[idq1i]

I'm not sure I understand your question. My point is not to question whether you "deserve" your spot... it was to question the idea that ALL those who "failed" didnt "deserve" a spot. This second idea is one that several posters here seem to have.

Oh you can't have it both ways!!!!! There is a limited number of spots!

(btw, Nothing personal. I just find it amusing to see how some people have been programmed never to never be judgemental)

 

[tugbug]

Oh you can't have it both ways!!!!! There is a limited number of spots!

Say you've got a 33/3.5, good ECs, etc. Another applicant has a 33/3.5, good ECs, etc. You get accepted. The other guy does not.

Is the guy who didnt get accepted LESS deserving? Did he not earn it in the same way you did? Several of the posts on this thread indicate that posters believe that the second guy MUST have some deficiency... I believe that the idea that there MUST be some clear difference - They claim one deserves, the other doesnt - is wrong. You see what Im saying?

 

[idq1i]

Say you've got a 33/3.5, good ECs, etc. Another applicant has a 33/3.5, good ECs, etc. You get accepted. The other guy does not.

Is the guy who didnt get accepted LESS deserving? Did he not earn it in the same way you did? Several of the posts on this thread indicate that posters believe that the second guy MUST have some deficiency... I believe that the idea that there MUST be some clear difference - They claim one deserves, the other doesnt - is wrong. You see what Im saying?

33/3.5 is a decent profile, but it is not stellar. Having this in mind, this person should cast a wide net in terms of schools. I submit that if this person sufficiently increases the number of applications, he will get in somewhere. It's all about viewing your candidacy objectively. This person may not get into choice 1-5, but he may match at choice 18

 

[DD214_DOC]

Nobody is "entitled" to a medical education, regardless of how hard they may have worked or not, just like nobody is "entitled" to be a movie star, music star, king, whatever.

And yes, there are people who get in that did not deserve it. I recall a story my advisor told me regarding his wife. She was on an adcom at a medical school (not in SC) and made recommendations to the dean for admission. One particular student she said did not need to be a physician. (yeah, they actually do judge you on more than numbers or how you answer questions) However, the dean informed her that this person's father was a major donor of money for the institution and asked her to reconsider. She did not, and the dean decided to admit him anyways.

The admissions process is completely relative to the people reviewing your application. Do people fall through the cracks? If you measure it only by numbers then yes, many do. However, this isn't entirely a numbers game and those with stellar stats who aren't admitted probably lack something non-academic.

 

[tugbug]

Do people fall through the cracks? If you measure it only by numbers then yes, many do. However, this isn't entirely a numbers game and those with stellar stats who aren't admitted probably lack something non-academic.

Well, we can just agree to disagree. I think there are probably many people who "fall through the cracks" with good stats and WITHOUT any obvious non-academic deficiencies... IMO, one of them is typing this post 🙂 . Although, I can see many who got accepted assuming that the process is almost without exception correct in choosing... it is not such a reasonable assumption when you find yourself on the wrong side of the acceptance process.

 

[FoughtFyr]

What really irks me is that med school admissions committees place a lot of weight on things like MCAT scores, which have practically no correlation with being a good doctor.

It is really depressing because I know several people whom I know would be fantastic doctors. They are extraordinarily compassionate and hard working but because of a stupid test like the MCAT, they have virtually no chance of getting into a US med school.

You are correct, the MCAT has nothing to do with how good a doctor one will be. It does correlate to some degree with a person's ability to complete the M1- M2 courses. Now I'm not saying that there is a significant difference between an applicant with a 30 and one with a 32, but you have to wonder about the one with a score of 24. You study three years of premed and then you "show your stuff". And if you get in, you have to do it again (Step 1 and 2). Take it from someone in a class where we had >10 people fail Step 1, it sucked. I'm sorry but the ability to regurgitate information on standardized tests is necessary to medical education as it exists today. Period. If you can't "get it together" for the MCAT, how will you for Step 1?

- H

 

[DD214_DOC]

Well, we can just agree to disagree. I think there are probably many people who "fall through the cracks" with good stats and WITHOUT any obvious non-academic deficiencies... IMO, one of them is typing this post 🙂 . Although, I can see many who got accepted assuming that the process is almost without exception correct in choosing... it is not such a reasonable assumption when you find yourself on the wrong side of the acceptance process.

The key idea is no non-academic problems relative to YOU, not the interview.

 

[tugbug]

The key idea is no non-academic problems relative to YOU, not the interview.

I dont follow. What do you mean?

 

[oneluv]

hi all. I was reading everyone's post and lots have many good points. The main thing I see people talking about is how high MCAT score, EC's and the total package makes you deserving and how low MCAT score and etc does not make you deserving because others have a better overall package than you. I think it is all relative IMO based on the adcom. The one main question I have for everyone is what makes you think someone is deserving or not based on their entire application? Since when has there been a general rule that 33,3.5, working in an orphanage, walked to school barefooted been proclaimed as the standard for a definite must to enter medical school. Everyone has a different opinion of what qualities one should possess to be given this opportunity. I feel that the adcom's are experienced enough to judge character based on everything and many will not agree and claim " THE ADCOM'S MAKES MISTAKES". Says who? The opinion we have of each other mean nothing. We are biased because if anyone of us were in the others position or people we know we would feel they deserved it because we know them and want them to succeed despite their high or low gpa's and MCAT scores. THe adcom's in most cases don't know us and so I think the're in the best position to judge our character while us as applicants scrutinize each other and say I'm better than you and so I deserve it.

One last note: Many seem to jump on people when they do say I deserve it because I worked hard. This doesn't mean they're saying I worked the hardest and so I deserve it and you don't! They're just speaking for themselves. Everyone has worked hard to accomplish it in one way or another. Do you want a prick talking down to you, not wanting to explain your condition to you and making you feel stupid for asking questions but they sure can operate well? I wouldn't. Neither do you want someone who is polite to you and very personable but thinks your funny bone is one of the ribs in your abdomen. No. But don't think you can determine either of the above by score alone. Some people have book sense but it ends there. Some people have a hard time with books and learn better hands on. The ADCOM'S find a common ground between the two and make the best decisions in their opinion. 🙂

 

[Mr Reddly]

Many seem to jump on people when they do say I deserve it because I worked hard.

I deserve it cuz I'm cute

 

[DMBFan61]

this thread is getting out of control

 

[UseUrHeadFred]

I'm not going to go off on people in general. I believe most people are generally good. But, that said, if you examine the study and life habits of the average college student, you'll find that there is a level of character required to get into medical school. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has heard business majors complain about having to actually ATTEND LECTURE to PASS a class. ("You mean, you have to get a *C* to pass that class? I thought you only need a D in classes outside your major!")

After all, there are thousands of people each year who don't make it in. The majority of these people are probably extremely hurt by their failure. Many of them have wanted to be physicians their entire lives. Even if you argue that they gave up too soon and should have continued to fight for it, the willingness to give up is also an intrinsic personal trait that only the individual is responsible for.

Getting into medical school is NOT a giant accomplishment in the scheme of things. People don't literally die trying to get in. But, for any particular individual, it is the self-realization of a lifelong goal. And I believe self-realization is one of the few goals in life that is ALWAYS worth it. Many people have to overcome significant obstacles to even have a shot. The story of going from a life of poverty to being a successful professional is truly encouraging.

 

[HoodyHoo]

You are correct, the MCAT has nothing to do with how good a doctor one will be. It does correlate to some degree with a person's ability to complete the M1- M2 courses. Now I'm not saying that there is a significant difference between an applicant with a 30 and one with a 32, but you have to wonder about the one with a score of 24. You study three years of premed and then you "show your stuff". And if you get in, you have to do it again (Step 1 and 2). Take it from someone in a class where we had >10 people fail Step 1, it sucked. I'm sorry but the ability to regurgitate information on standardized tests is necessary to medical education as it exists today. Period. If you can't "get it together" for the MCAT, how will you for Step 1?

- H

Many people take the MCAT their first time, get a score like 24-26, and retake it and get in the 30's. If you don't prepare well, you can easily do very poorly. I don't think your MCAT score would correlate to your step 1 scores very well. If you put the time and effort into it, you will pass.

 

[HoodyHoo]

You are correct, the MCAT has nothing to do with how good a doctor one will be. It does correlate to some degree with a person's ability to complete the M1- M2 courses. Now I'm not saying that there is a significant difference between an applicant with a 30 and one with a 32, but you have to wonder about the one with a score of 24. You study three years of premed and then you "show your stuff". And if you get in, you have to do it again (Step 1 and 2). Take it from someone in a class where we had >10 people fail Step 1, it sucked. I'm sorry but the ability to regurgitate information on standardized tests is necessary to medical education as it exists today. Period. If you can't "get it together" for the MCAT, how will you for Step 1?

- H

And also, two years of medical education can be more than enough time for someone to "get it together" if they didn't have it together in college.

 

[FoughtFyr]

And also, two years of medical education can be more than enough time for someone to "get it together" if they didn't have it together in college.

Well I will be interested to see if your views change after you personally face the tests. BTW - if you pass Step 1 you can only take it once (unlike the MCAT). And two years of medical education is like nothing else you have likely experienced until now. The most apt expression that comes to mind is "trying to drink from a firehose". No one "gets it together" in M1 and M2, they do all they can to keep it from coming apart.

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

Many people take the MCAT their first time, get a score like 24-26, and retake it and get in the 30's. If you don't prepare well, you can easily do very poorly. I don't think your MCAT score would correlate to your step 1 scores very well. If you put the time and effort into it, you will pass.

Actually a local study suggests the opposite. While unpublished (and therefore anecdotal), Step 1 scores were directly correlated to first attempt MCAT scores.

- H

 

[idq1i]

And also, two years of medical education can be more than enough time for someone to "get it together" if they didn't have it together in college.

LOL, thanks for the laugh. You are in for a surprise

What great body of experience are you basing this whopper on?

 

[Dr.ImCute]

so I guess no one took stats huh? correlation isn't causation.

simma down ppl. 😛

 

[Lion-O]

Many people take the MCAT their first time, get a score like 24-26, and retake it and get in the 30's. If you don't prepare well, you can easily do very poorly. I don't think your MCAT score would correlate to your step 1 scores very well. If you put the time and effort into it, you will pass.

I really didn't want to join in on any arguments (I didn't post this thread as a debate after all), but I feel bad just letting you say things that are false. Not only false, but sort of insulting to people who don't do well on the MCAT.

From: http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/sum2003.pdf

Here is some data for the April and August 2003 MCATs:

Repeating Examinees
N 18,894
VR 7.9
PS 7.9
BS 8.3
WS O
First-Time Examinees
N 39,866
VR 8.9
PS 8.2
BS 8.5
WS O

I don't see how you can possibly just throw out "Many people take the MCAT their first time, get a score like 24-26, and retake it and get in the 30's." Clearly, on average, retesters do worse than first-time takers. Alas, I have more opinions on this topic, but I don't want to be any more confrontational than I've already been. I'll just let that data speak for itself.

 

[(nicedream)]

I'm not going to go off on people in general. I believe most people are generally good. But, that said, if you examine the study and life habits of the average college student, you'll find that there is a level of character required to get into medical school. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has heard business majors complain about having to actually ATTEND LECTURE to PASS a class. ("You mean, you have to get a *C* to pass that class? I thought you only need a D in classes outside your major!")

After all, there are thousands of people each year who don't make it in. The majority of these people are probably extremely hurt by their failure. Many of them have wanted to be physicians their entire lives. Even if you argue that they gave up too soon and should have continued to fight for it, the willingness to give up is also an intrinsic personal trait that only the individual is responsible for.

Holy crap, give me a break. I don't know anyone that couldn't get into a carribean school. Do you know anyone that failed to become a doctor when that's what they wanted?

 

[FoughtFyr]

so I guess no one took stats huh? correlation isn't causation.

simma down ppl. 😛

Actually took a lot of stats. That's why the statement said what it did ("a local study suggests", not proves). However if you apply the postulate that a reasonable scientific explanation for correlation absent confounders must be present to even consider causation then the argument holds. A student who is moderately proficient at standardized tests at the end of undergrad will still be so two (three) years later and, absent specific instruction, a student who "tests poorly" will also continue to do so.

BTW - you should keep in mind, an adcom is far more interested in admitting people who can finish the program than they are in taking chances on an "unproven" individual who will "make a great doctor". Trust me, I've been on an adcom for three years.

- H

 

[HoodyHoo]

I really didn't want to join in on any arguments (I didn't post this thread as a debate after all), but I feel bad just letting you say things that are false. Not only false, but sort of insulting to people who don't do well on the MCAT.

From: http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/sum2003.pdf

Here is some data for the April and August 2003 MCATs:

Repeating Examinees
N 18,894
VR 7.9
PS 7.9
BS 8.3
WS O
First-Time Examinees
N 39,866
VR 8.9
PS 8.2
BS 8.5
WS O

I don't see how you can possibly just throw out "Many people take the MCAT their first time, get a score like 24-26, and retake it and get in the 30's." Clearly, on average, retesters do worse than first-time takers. Alas, I have more opinions on this topic, but I don't want to be any more confrontational than I've already been. I'll just let that data speak for itself.

I am speaking from experience, sorry to insult you. However, I don't see how this is insulting to people that don't do well their first time. I have many friends received very average scores, studied their a** off some more, and did much better the second time, how is this insulting??

 

[HoodyHoo]

LOL, thanks for the laugh. You are in for a surprise

What great body of experience are you basing this whopper on?

ok, i guess i need to word things a bit better since you people are so god damn quick to jump on people. Okay, if you don't have your **** together prior to med school, obviously it's not the time to try and figure it out which is what it seemed like I was saying. What I mean is that most people who are accepted do have their **** together. anyway, some of ya'll need to take it easy and not be so quick to flame people.

 

[Dr.ImCute]

That's why the statement said what it did ("a local study suggests", not proves). However if you apply the postulate that a reasonable scientific explanation for correlation absent confounders must be present to even consider causation then the argument holds. - H

actually, I was talking about the correlational studies that have been done on step 1 and mcat scores. And theres no such thing as causation in a correlational design (with or without confounds), because its not an experiment. period.

 

[FoughtFyr]

actually, I was talking about the correlational studies that have been done on step 1 and mcat scores. And theres no such thing as causation in a correlational design (with or without confounds), because its not an experiment. period.

No question, it was an observation. The postulate argues that there sufficent evidence to warrant an experiment.

- H (your friendly statistics TA)

 

[prlester]

More like a gross violation of the english language....

hi, i am going to nymc next year. do you think you could give me some info on how to study what books to buy etc.
i know it sounds like a lot but thanks.

 

[FoughtFyr]

Actually a local study suggests the opposite. While unpublished (and therefore anecdotal), Step 1 scores were directly correlated to first attempt MCAT scores.

- H

BUMP, for a link to a AAMC published study en pointe.

http://www.aamc.org/data/aib/cime/vol3no2.pdf

- H

 

[Mr. Darcy]

When I was 25 I took biology and chem and dropped out. So I guess that makes me a "failed premed". The reasons that people don't goto medical school vary. Never think intelligence is what we have. With respect I am sure we are all clever folks, but folks who get in have many stories. Perhaps a supportive parent, friend or great job.

Anyway i managed to get back to my dream in my late 30s and am now off to medical school (yep passed bio/chem). So for those who think they have failed, just consider it another road and perhaps you will get back later.

The nice part about this process is that it is really a test of how much we like to learn. Anatomy here I come🙂

 

[flyingillini]

great thread - very inspirational