I'm really feeling too lazy to go through my school's convoluted offsite library service right now. Irresponsibility was the biggest correlate, not necessarily cheating, that much I remember. I'll dig it up tomorrow when I'm feeling a bit less lazy. But I would, personally, qualify going to a bar or club with a fake ID as pretty damn irresponsible if you know what the consequences are.Thanks! Do they go into detail about how they were classified, and what qualified as severe irresponsibility? I think that's the crux of this issue. For example it wouldn't surprise me if cheating IAs were highly predictive of this but minor marijuana/alcohol infractions were not.
They got me mad diversity points in the admission process.I'm assuming you got those tats after your acceptance.
Where did you get those stats?with several thousand applicants for a few hundreds spots, yes. This year, with nearly 800,000 total applications across across schools, for less than 100,000 acceptances total, 700,000 have to be rejected.
What are you talking about?If you're willing to use a Fake ID to enter a club, how do I know you won't use a fake ID to perform surgery or access drugs?
I am talking about the number of applications (not applicants) across all schools and the total number of acceptances offerred across schools (which includes multiple acceptances by individual applicants and waitlists turning into offers. In 2014 there were over 730,000 total applications https://www.aamc.org/download/321442/data/factstable1.pdfWhere did you get those stats?
Isn't the acceptance rate normally around 40%
I hear you can get one in about 2 years.@Mad Jack I like your shiny new badge.
This study is looking at people who had unprofessional behavior in med school...not people who drank in college at 19. That's a big difference.Background
Evidence supporting professionalism as a critical measure of competence in medical education is limited. In this case–control study, we investigated the association of disciplinary action against practicing physicians with prior unprofessional behavior in medical school. We also examined the specific types of behavior that are most predictive of disciplinary action against practicing physicians with unprofessional behavior in medical school.
Methods
The study included 235 graduates of three medical schools who were disciplined by one of 40 state medical boards between 1990 and 2003 (case physicians). The 469 control physicians were matched with the case physicians according to medical school and graduation year. Predictor variables from medical school included the presence or absence of narratives describing unprofessional behavior, grades, standardized-test scores, and demographic characteristics. Narratives were assigned an overall rating for unprofessional behavior. Those that met the threshold for unprofessional behavior were further classified among eight types of behavior and assigned a severity rating (moderate to severe).
Results
Disciplinary action by a medical board was strongly associated with prior unprofessional behavior in medical school (odds ratio, 3.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.9 to 4.8), for a population attributable risk of disciplinary action of 26 percent. The types of unprofessional behavior most strongly linked with disciplinary action were severe irresponsibility (odds ratio, 8.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to 40.1) and severely diminished capacity for self-improvement (odds ratio, 3.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 8.2). Disciplinary action by a medical board was also associated with low scores on the Medical College Admission Test and poor grades in the first two years of medical school (1 percent and 7 percent population attributable risk, respectively), but the association with these variables was less strong than that with unprofessional behavior.
Conclusions
In this case–control study, disciplinary action among practicing physicians by medical boards was strongly associated with unprofessional behavior in medical school. Students with the strongest association were those who were described as irresponsible or as having diminished ability to improve their behavior. Professionalism should have a central role in medical academics and throughout one's medical career.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. People who do irresponsible things in college are more likely to do irresponsible things in med school. When you're comparing against literally tens of thousands of people without criminal charges, you're kind of going to get a lot more scrutiny, because that's one more strike against you that says you might pose a problem in the future.This study is looking at people who had unprofessional behavior in med school...not people who drank in college at 19. That's a big difference.
And I didn't have my first sip of alcohol until I was 21, actually.
It's an acquired taste. There's a lot of really great tasting alcohol out there though, even if you're not down with beer or wine.I've never had a sip of alcohol, and I'm a non-trad applicant.
I hear it tastes bad anyways.
Does that mean then that because I procrastinate on my work I'm going to get a DUI?The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. People who do irresponsible things in college are more likely to do irresponsible things in med school. When you're comparing against literally tens of thousands of people without criminal charges, you're kind of going to get a lot more scrutiny, because that's one more strike against you that says you might pose a problem in the future.
This person did something criminally irresponsible, so surely they're likely to do other irresponsible things that are more innocuous. That's the point. If you were given two identical applicant files, and you saw that one had a misdemeanor and the other didn't, and you were trying to build the best damn class you could, which would you pick?Does that mean then that because I procrastinate on my work I'm going to get a DUI?
You can't take one irresponsible behavior and apply it to unrelated things whenever you'd like.
ROUND 2... FIGHT!Does that mean then that because I procrastinate on my work I'm going to get a DUI?
You can't take one irresponsible behavior and apply it to unrelated things whenever you'd like.
I'll agree that I would pick the applicant without the criminal record if they were otherwise identical applicants, but that really never happens. Adcoms on here say over and over that they don't sit there and compare two applicants side by side.This person did something criminally irresponsible, so surely they're likely to do other irresponsible things that are more innocuous. That's the point. If you were given two identical applicant files, and you saw that one had a misdemeanor and the other didn't, and you were trying to build the best damn class you could, which would you pick?
I think the sort if people that are willing to procure and use fake IDs are the sort if people who will cut corners with documentation, because both are relatively minor ways of disregarding unnecessary laws.I'll agree that I would pick the applicant without the criminal record if they were otherwise identical applicants, but that really never happens. Adcoms on here say over and over that they don't sit there and compare two applicants side by side.
What I disagree with is your claim that the study you posted has relevance here. I'm unconvinced that kids who drink underage become cheaters in medical school. I mean honestly, the kids I know who cheated in college were the ones whose lives were centered around academic success, and they rarely drank or socialized at all.
I think the sort if people that are willing to procure and use fake IDs are the sort if people who will cut corners with documentation, because both are relatively minor ways of disregarding unnecessary laws.
I think Gonnif is usually pretty reasonable and gives great advice.I don't know where we went wrong but all these arguments about if you did this bad thing then you will continue to do bad things so you can't be a doctor are so strange to me. It's like when people call the cops on elementary school students for making a gun sign with their fingers or charging them with assault for kissing someone. Making a gun sign with your fingers means you're going to grow up into a school shooter? Or kissing someone on the cheek is a sure sign of a future rapist? People make mistakes, especially kids. What is with this bizarre zero tolerance society that we live in?
Hey gonnif, using a fake id is a precursor to rape? Are you seriously making this claim as if it has any basis in reality? Because I really don't care if 19 year olds are using fake ids to get themselves a drink but I think my integrity is just fine. I've gotten a ticket for going 4 miles above the speed limit on the highway. Cop wrote that I was going 69 in a 55 zone when it was actually a 65. Should I be banned from driving forever because I got a speeding ticket? Jesus Christ.
I'm serious- you should see some of the poor documentation I've seen by doctors that just don't give a ****. Like, straight up copying notes from medical students, nurses, etc and using them as their own, then charging direct contact time for it- it's super lazy and actually illegal, plus it makes everyone else's job harder because their notes are completely useless. But they figure it's not a big deal, that documentation is just a formality that has been annoyingly imposed on them. Trust me, when you're in the hospital, you'll quickly understand why the attitudes are very equivalent, as they're both examples of people skipping past minor legal hurdles to commit a usually victimless crime.
My kids are going to hell... or jail. /jkI think the sort if people that are willing to procure and use fake IDs are the sort if people who will cut corners with documentation, because both are relatively minor ways of disregarding unnecessary laws.
I do agree with the bolded portion of your quote. What you are describing is a very real problem that tons and tons of physicians are actually guilty of doing. Some physicians have some of the most embarassing charts I've ever seen. We are talking 1 liner sentences in the HPI that arent even grammatically correct, nor do they explain what is going on.I'm serious- you should see some of the poor documentation I've seen by doctors that just don't give a ****. Like, straight up copying notes from medical students, nurses, etc and using them as their own, then charging direct contact time for it- it's super lazy and actually illegal, plus it makes everyone else's job harder because their notes are completely useless. But they figure it's not a big deal, that documentation is just a formality that has been annoyingly imposed on them. Trust me, when you're in the hospital, you'll quickly understand why the attitudes are very equivalent, as they're both examples of people skipping past minor legal hurdles to commit a usually victimless crime.
I guess it must have just not been a thing where I lived- our state IDs are just too hard to fake, raids were common (some bars seemed to get raided every other week near campus) and the penalties are pretty severe, so few people bothered risking it. Drinking on campus was extremely common, but sneaking into bars was a good way to get charged with a misdemeanor, get an IA, or get thrown out of school if it was a repeat offense.My kids are going to hell... or jail. /jk
In my defense, I didn't know that they had fake IDs until they were old enough not to need them.
Fake IDs are ubiquitous on college campuses. Underage drinking is ubiquitous and stings are relatively common, too. Sometimes the only difference between a kid with a record and one without is that one of them got caught. (Same can be said for speeding tickets among drivers of all ages.)
I do worry that intoxication puts women at increased risk of victimization but that is separate from fake IDs. It is also part of our culture where drinking as a forbidden activity for most college-age students becomes all the more enticing.
You honestly believe that someone who is willing to skirt the law is no more likely than someone who does their best to avoid breaking any laws to be lax about following the tedious and often pointless mandates we have to deal with in healthcare? I'm not saying they are bad people, not in the slightest, just that people who tend to have a record of disregarding authority are probably statistically more likely to disregard authority in the future.I do agree with the bolded portion of your quote. What you are describing is a very real problem that tons and tons of physicians are actually guilty of doing. Some physicians have some of the most embarassing charts I've ever seen. We are talking 1 liner sentences in the HPI that arent even grammatically correct, nor do they explain what is going on.
I disagree with the rest.
No, you have a rational argument. What I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that having a fake ID as an undergrad is the factor that necessarily indicates that someone is going to keep poor documentation as a physician.You honestly believe that someone who is willing to skirt the law is no more likely than someone who does their best to avoid breaking any laws to be lax about following the tedious and often pointless mandates we have to deal with in healthcare? I'm not saying they are bad people, not in the slightest, just that people who tend to have a record of disregarding authority are probably statistically more likely to disregard authority in the future.
I never said it was the factor. Just that it was a factor. Evidence against character.No, you have a rational argument. What I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that having a fake ID as an undergrad is the factor that necessarily indicates that someone is going to keep poor documentation as a physician.
I am saying that the physicians who do keep poor documentation were going to do that either way regardless of whether or no they had a fake ID. Having a fake ID just should not be used as a correlate for poor documentation. Again, I understand your side of the argument and it is a rational one.
No one can say for sure what an individual will do without more concrete evidence.
Indeed, well I worded my response incorrectly. I am saying that in this case, the context in which A occurs is so minsicule and temporally irrelevant that it should not be used as a factor for a person dealing with patients 10-15 years down the road.I never said it was the factor. Just that it was a factor. Evidence against character.
You're implying that I am saying A=B. I'm not. I'm saying A increases the likelihood of B by a small amount.
It's more likely that if B occurs then it's more likely that A also occurred, not the other way around.I never said it was the factor. Just that it was a factor. Evidence against character.
You're implying that I am saying A=B. I'm not. I'm saying A increases the likelihood of B by a small amount.
If B occured and A is more likely to have previously occurred, that means there is a correlative relationship between A and B. I'm not saying it's causative, just correlative. And correlates are enough for me, when I've got plenty of people who could fill those spots that lack negative correlates. Now, if a person adds enough positive correlates to their app, I could easy overlook the negative one. But that's the whole point here- this is a negative mark that can be overcome by demonstrating positive character via ECs.It's more likely that if B occurs then it's more likely that A also occurred, not the other way around.
Lol that doesn't make sense. Correlates don't work in the opposite direction. For example, drinking spoiled milk may lead to puking, but puking doesn't lead to drinking spoiled milk.If B occured and A is more likely to have previously occurred, that means there is a correlative relationship between A and B. I'm not saying it's causative, just correlative. And correlates are enough for me, when I've got plenty of people who could fill those spots that lack negative correlates. Now, if a person adds enough positive correlates to their app, I could easy overlook the negative one. But that's the whole point here- this is a negative mark that can be overcome by demonstrating positive character via ECs.
It's impossible for us to say without an expensive and exhaustive study. I chose to believe irresponsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future irresponsible behavior. Responsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future responsible behavior. It's pretty simple.Lol that doesn't make sense. Correlates don't work in the opposite direction. For example, drinking spoiled milk may lead to puking, but puking doesn't lead to drinking spoiled milk.
You can't pick and choose though which behaviors you analyze as indicators. Besides using fake ID's and drinking underage, I was completely responsible. You can analyze my incredibly responsible behavior now and say that's indicative, but then that conflicts with what my underage drinking indicates.It's impossible for us to say without an expensive and exhaustive study. I chose to believe irresponsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future irresponsible behavior. Responsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future responsible behavior. It's pretty simple.
Well it sounds very simple when you put it like that, but putting a simple statement like that in a context like this does not make the said simple statement correct even if it was correct before you put it in this context.It's impossible for us to say without an expensive and exhaustive study. I chose to believe irresponsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future irresponsible behavior. Responsible behavior is a predictive correlate of future responsible behavior. It's pretty simple.
Yea, I mean I def see your side of it. Its a rational argument.At the end of the day, actions have consequences, and criminal or institutional records affect your application, as they reflect upon your character. If people do not want to face those consequences or have their character called into question, they should not engage in those activities. This is, to me, a relatively small ding on someone's character and judgment, but it's there nonetheless.
Own your actions and move on, that's all you can do. Nothing, to me, it's more annoying than the "everybody is doing it" excuse, as that says "I do not take any responsibility for this." "I made a stupid mistake and I got caught, but that isn't who I am" is the proper approach, as demonstrated by some good letters and ECs.
I think the correlation vs causation point he was making is valid. He's not saying that puking leads to drinking spoiled milk, just that if someone is puking they're more likely to have drank spoiled milk than someone who isn't puking.Lol that doesn't make sense. Correlates don't work in the opposite direction. For example, drinking spoiled milk may lead to puking, but puking doesn't lead to drinking spoiled milk.
The bolded is kind of how I feel about it. this is why I've been saying Jack has a rational argument.I think the correlation vs causation point he was making is valid. He's not saying that puking leads to drinking spoiled milk, just that if someone is puking they're more likely to have drank spoiled milk than someone who isn't puking.
In the same vein, using a fake ID may not lead to other offences, but are you as certain that people who have been caught using fake IDs don't have a higher occurrence of other infractions? Personally I think this offence is mild enough to correlate quite poorly with other offences, but I understand why an adcom might use this reasoning, especially with worse offences. It doesn't have to be an unquestionable logical conclusion, just enough for an adcom to suspect a correlation.
Still doesn't work that way. You can't reverse the direction because multiple variables may be correlated with B. In this example, someone may be puking because they have the flu or food poisoning. Thus, you can't say that B necessarily is associated with A.I think the correlation vs causation point he was making is valid. He's not saying that puking leads to drinking spoiled milk, just that if someone is puking they're more likely to have drank spoiled milk than someone who isn't puking.
In the same vein, using a fake ID may not lead to other offences, but are you as certain that people who have been caught using fake IDs don't have a higher occurrence of other infractions? Personally I think this offence is mild enough to correlate quite poorly with other offences, but I understand why an adcom might use this reasoning, especially with worse offences. It doesn't have to be an unquestionable logical conclusion, just enough for an adcom to suspect a correlation.
You do realize that there is a such thing as predictive correlates right? And that we use them a lot in medicine? You add a bunch of predictive correlates up to determine overall risk. This is an example of something that you add into the mix for "potential for future problems."Still doesn't work that way. You can't reverse the direction because multiple variables may be correlated with B. In this example, someone may be puking because they have the flu or food poisoning. Thus, you can't say that B necessarily is associated with A.
But we have no reason to believe that underage drinking is predictive of future illegal behavior. The arguments here have all been hypothetical and depend on faulty logic.You do realize that there is a such thing as predictive correlates right? And that we use them a lot in medicine? You add a bunch of predictive correlates up to determine overall risk. This is an example of something that you add into the mix for "potential for future problems."
No reason at all to believe that, certainly.But we have no reason to believe that underage drinking is predictive of future illegal behavior. The arguments here have all been hypothetical and depend on faulty logic.
I didn't say necessarily, that's the point. That would be "Johnny is puking therefore he drank spoiled milk" whereas I said "Johnny is puking therefore he is more likely to have drank spoiled milk than Ted who is not puking". The main point here is that this isn't about logical necessities, just about what an adcom will suspect to correlate with future behaviour. The burden of proof is extremely low, you can't give them any reason to suspect anything.Still doesn't work that way. You can't reverse the direction because multiple variables may be correlated with B. In this example, someone may be puking because they have the flu or food poisoning. Thus, you can't say that B necessarily is associated with A.
I don't want to get in a FIGHT over here, but thats causation.Lol that doesn't make sense. Correlates don't work in the opposite direction. For example, drinking spoiled milk may lead to puking, but puking doesn't lead to drinking spoiled milk.