- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Messages
- 4,755
- Reaction score
- 8
Right on.
For The Non Superstars
- Thread starter kito
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2000
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 14
that's dumb.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,209
- Reaction score
- 0
No i am not saying that at all ClemsonDoc. I will however say that in order to become a good doctor one needs to have social consciousness. Going from the suburbs to an Ivy league and instead of taking advantage of the diversity of great schools all you do is hang around your own peers from other suburban parts of the country then you don't grow and your people skills remain 0.
Also chances are that people who have been through a lot of hardships in their lives will have better crisis management etc.
Anyway i didn't intend to make such a general statement. There are wonderfull doctors and md-applicants that come from all shorts of backrounds.
Also chances are that people who have been through a lot of hardships in their lives will have better crisis management etc.
Anyway i didn't intend to make such a general statement. There are wonderfull doctors and md-applicants that come from all shorts of backrounds.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Messages
- 4,755
- Reaction score
- 8
In case you folks didn't know, life as a physician or a surgeon is rough. It is a difficult life, and the complications are compounded, seemingly continuously. I have no doubt that prior experience with disadvantageous situations, and a difficult upbringing serves to prepare a person to face the difficulty of a medical career better than the best of schools. That's because you can teach anybody to be a doctor, but you can't teach anybody to be tough.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,460
- Reaction score
- 23,510
Well put
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 9
Maybe you can't teach anybody to be tough, but you can teach toughness, or at least breed it, in most receptive candidates. The military does it,and they call it "basic training." Medicine does it too, though we call it "internship." Obviously, toughness isn't the only or even the primary goal, but it is one of the goals of that stage of training.
The problem is that you can't teach everybody to be tough, so it's safer to accept people who are already tough.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 1
GPAs and MCATs only show whether you have the minimum level of neccessary intelligence to be able to train in a rigorous program. Once you reach the cutoff, you've reached the cutoff.
Almost any monkey can get good grades and MCAT if that's the only thing he/she does for four years is live in the library. "The MCAT tests your thinking." What a load. People with lower gpa (like affirmitive action whining boy) who get a 35 MCAT obviously memorized their way through it. That might tell admissions that that you were willing to put in a few months cramming, but not willing to take your undergrad work seriously for 4 years (obviously there are many with extenuating circumstances who deserve to get in with a lower gpa).
As for ECs, I really don't think they mean much. They know most people do it because they have to (jumping through hoops). However, if you don't do it, it just shows that you don't want in bad enough to make a little sacrifice. If you can't spend a couple hours a week on something other than yourself, how in the heck are you going to work 80 hours a week and stay up all night on call for people you don't even know?
I can also tell you that social skills are SO important for being a good doctor. Don't underestimate their importance. I guarantee at least one of your profs in med school will tell you that most of your diagnoses come from history. Taking a history is an art, and if you're socially ignorant then you're doomed, even with a $50k workup. If people don't like you, you're going to have a tough time getting them to be honest with you, and all of your mistakes will be amplified and a pi$$ed off patient is going to jump on the opportunity to sue your butt.
Even if you're a pathologist, for whoever mentioned that, you had better be able to communicate, because you're going to be dealing with other doctors all day long. And who says a pathologist doesn't have patient contact? They do, (dermatopathology, transfusion medicine, etc) although obviously not to the extent of other docs.
As someone else mentioned, if you want to be a scientist, get a phd (which is still a pretty noble thing, IMO).
Almost any monkey can get good grades and MCAT if that's the only thing he/she does for four years is live in the library. "The MCAT tests your thinking." What a load. People with lower gpa (like affirmitive action whining boy) who get a 35 MCAT obviously memorized their way through it. That might tell admissions that that you were willing to put in a few months cramming, but not willing to take your undergrad work seriously for 4 years (obviously there are many with extenuating circumstances who deserve to get in with a lower gpa).
As for ECs, I really don't think they mean much. They know most people do it because they have to (jumping through hoops). However, if you don't do it, it just shows that you don't want in bad enough to make a little sacrifice. If you can't spend a couple hours a week on something other than yourself, how in the heck are you going to work 80 hours a week and stay up all night on call for people you don't even know?
I can also tell you that social skills are SO important for being a good doctor. Don't underestimate their importance. I guarantee at least one of your profs in med school will tell you that most of your diagnoses come from history. Taking a history is an art, and if you're socially ignorant then you're doomed, even with a $50k workup. If people don't like you, you're going to have a tough time getting them to be honest with you, and all of your mistakes will be amplified and a pi$$ed off patient is going to jump on the opportunity to sue your butt.
Even if you're a pathologist, for whoever mentioned that, you had better be able to communicate, because you're going to be dealing with other doctors all day long. And who says a pathologist doesn't have patient contact? They do, (dermatopathology, transfusion medicine, etc) although obviously not to the extent of other docs.
As someone else mentioned, if you want to be a scientist, get a phd (which is still a pretty noble thing, IMO).
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2000
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 14
well then in that case, having a rough background would not be an advantage, by your own assertion.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
Uh, Goofy....
If GPA, MCAT, ECs aren't important, should 100% of the medical school admissions process be based on personal statements and then interviews? Then again, if someone does well on the MCAT you believe that to be overpreparation. You can also overprepare and thus "cheat" equally in your personal statement or interviews.
So I guess you suggest a random dice roll to determine who gets into medical school then? Also, having an interview be 100% of the admissions process is ridiculous, as you will simply get the social gunners who suck up to everyone and smile/nod/agree with everything in med school. I mean, sheesh, at least leave SOME objective criteria for adcoms to work with, even if those stats are only a part of a much bigger picture.
If GPA, MCAT, ECs aren't important, should 100% of the medical school admissions process be based on personal statements and then interviews? Then again, if someone does well on the MCAT you believe that to be overpreparation. You can also overprepare and thus "cheat" equally in your personal statement or interviews.
So I guess you suggest a random dice roll to determine who gets into medical school then? Also, having an interview be 100% of the admissions process is ridiculous, as you will simply get the social gunners who suck up to everyone and smile/nod/agree with everything in med school. I mean, sheesh, at least leave SOME objective criteria for adcoms to work with, even if those stats are only a part of a much bigger picture.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,460
- Reaction score
- 23,510
Piss-poor reasoning that, my good dear close sweet friend. Conditioning that is imposed by lifestyle is not the same as being taught by a person, especially in a class setting. You have some real problems with taking disparate words or concepts and imposing a single definition on them.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2000
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 14
Very good points, Goofyone.
I'd like to add that getting a 35 is not an easy feat though. It's not like the SAT where you memorize a few words and learn how to guess right. The MCAT is also an endurance test, not only for the 2+ months of hardcore studying to prepare, but also to put everything out there on a full day. It teaches you to sustain a very high level of commitment for an extended amount of time, and also teaches you to utilize all that preparation on a single day, to lay it all on the line.
I have seen instances where people can have good GPAs and not do well on the MCAT because they burn out of studying after a few weeks or months. It can be argued that getting a good GPA is about cramming for 3-4 days before a final, whereas the MCAT is cramming for 2 months. In terms of maintaining a VERY high level of commitment, it might be said that the MCAT is more of an endurance test than the GPA.
I'd like to add that getting a 35 is not an easy feat though. It's not like the SAT where you memorize a few words and learn how to guess right. The MCAT is also an endurance test, not only for the 2+ months of hardcore studying to prepare, but also to put everything out there on a full day. It teaches you to sustain a very high level of commitment for an extended amount of time, and also teaches you to utilize all that preparation on a single day, to lay it all on the line.
I have seen instances where people can have good GPAs and not do well on the MCAT because they burn out of studying after a few weeks or months. It can be argued that getting a good GPA is about cramming for 3-4 days before a final, whereas the MCAT is cramming for 2 months. In terms of maintaining a VERY high level of commitment, it might be said that the MCAT is more of an endurance test than the GPA.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2000
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 14
Nutmeg, I know you are just dying to get even with me for some perceived wrong against you, but please do not patronize me with your half-assed drivel.
How significant do you think the differences between the two groups will be, given that both have to go through the rigors of 4 years of medical school and 3+ years of residency? The "advantaged" applicant, if he/she is not tough after 4 years of the premed curriculum, will be "conditioned", as you say, through their medical training too. The difference after all is said and done will probably be negligible.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,460
- Reaction score
- 23,510
Man, my foot tastes like ****! Ought to keep it outta my mouth.
😉
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 1
Man, I can't believe this site. Some of the most intelligent people on this planet, most of them smarter than me, yet you guys never read carefully.
I never said those things weren't important. What I said was that anyone can get good grades when that's all they do is study, and don't make any effort in other areas of their lives.
I also didn't say a high MCAT was overpreparation. I said a pathetic GPA and a stellar MCAT shows that you crammed, and not necessarily that you learned your stuff well in undergrad (extenuating circumstances noted).
As for EC's, I said you can't tell if someone did them because they wanted to or because they knew they had to. But if you don't do them, you're lazy and don't deserve a shot.
That said, I think an applicant with something going in ALL areas is the best, even if I didn't say it outright.
Admissions people seem to agree, generally speaking.
Anyway my whole point was that communication and social skills are grossly underrated, and are very important for a successful physician.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I'd rather have an expert doctor with a s**tty personality performing surgery on me, than to have someone that is good at communicating and socializing and has no idea what he is doing. I have seen both types of doctors, and believe me, when your life is threatened by illness you really don't care if your doctor is good at socializing, you just want him/her to be an expert at what they're doing so they can save your life.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,460
- Reaction score
- 23,510
The vast majority of physicians are not surgeons, and for most of physicians, rapport with your patients is essential both to proper diagnosis as well as to their compliance with your recommendations. Additionally, the skills of a great surgeon probably have the least to do with stats and EC's.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 1
I get your point, and of course I wouldn't want someone operating on me that didn't know what they were doing. That's why surgical training takes so long.
One of my teachers (and BTW, a brilliant physician) told me this: "dumb doctors don't kill people, egotistical ones do."
A doctor that communicates well is able to get info. from their patients that other doctors can't--information that can make or break the diagnosis.
A doctor that is clueless on a case can always ask for help or refer you to a more knowledgable doc. Even a dumb doctor knows that.
See, I'm not crazy, Nutmeg agrees w/ me.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,460
- Reaction score
- 23,510
I dunno.... that might be the first sign you need to get your head checked....😀 😛 😀
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 9
The greatest surgical training in the world makes absolutely zero difference if the guy is dead-tired and doesn't give a crap about you. What is still of critical importance even in the OR is that the surgeon care at least a little about his patient and how well his patient does. In addition, the surgeon must also have adequate technical skills to perform the job. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.
I have scrubbed with both kinds of surgeons. Trust me, you want the guy who gives a damn about his/her patients. Medical training in the US is rigorous enough such that the vast majority of surgeons leave residency with the knowledge and technical skills to perform their jobs. What makes the difference is how much the surgeon cares about the patient and the job he's performing.
