Funny quotes from "less informed" premeds

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pusheen said:
Oh gosh me too! I'm taking Gen Bio 2 lab with a bunch of freshmen this year. I feel like a bitter old person in this class.

One of my lab partners smeared her fingers all over the sterile agarose culture we were supposed to grow unique bacteria on. I wanted to cry
Click to expand...

Try having already graduated and been out of school for a while before taking the plunge to finish pre-reqs with a bunch of freshman who are 7-8 years younger than you. Its insane that any of us ever survived being that new!

Story time:
In organic II lab, doing a nitration synthesis with mixed acids. I'm working in my fume hood doing the mixing very slow with everything in ice baths. Behind me I hear a girl in the class mutter uh-oh under her breath. I turn around to what looks like a 4th grade science project gone horribly wrong, there is something fuming and spitting hot droplets everywhere, and then the beaker just shatters and basically explodes, sending glass across the lab table and a nice plume of fumes starts to spread. We evacuate the lab until the cloud dissipates. She is taken to the dept chairs office for a conversation. Later that day we are in lecture and I notice that she is in the class, just kinda sitting in the back on her laptop browsing facebook. My friend turns and asks her what happened in lab and she says that she doesn't know, she grabbed the two bottles from the lab cart and just starting mixing them together, then tried to add water because it was getting too hot.... she wasn't there the next lecture class later that week, nor any time after.

How do these people manage to not kill themselves accidentally? And who makes it to organic II without knowing how to work in a lab?
 
Pre-med told me that there was no point in starting to think about an MCAT timeline (i.e. when to take the mcat, when to take useful pre-reqs, etc) until Junior year or later because "the MCAT is bound to change again by then."

🙁
 
There is a girl in one of my classes who says she "use to be a premed" like its some sort of badge of honor. She considers herself an expert in reproduction and pregnancy because she once wanted to be an OBGYN.

Not from a premed, but still funny. I told one of my friends I was premed. Her response? "I didn't know we had a med school on campus!"
 
Annabell Lee said:
There is a girl in one of my classes who says she "use to be a premed" like its some sort of badge of honor. She considers herself an expert in reproduction and pregnancy because she once wanted to be an OBGYN.

Not from a premed, but still funny. I told one of my friends I was premed. Her response? "I didn't know we had a med school on campus!"
Click to expand...

I still love when a student sees a procedure being done and then suddenly becomes an expert at it themselves. Its one thing to learn, its another entirely claim to be an expert.

Not a pre-med but still good: Got dispatched to a local whataburger for a CPR in progress. Update enroute that the patient is still unconscious and not breathing per bystanders. We arrive on scene and I grab the jump kit and go inside, I see the crowd by the counter and start gently pushing my way through, I look down to see someone pushing on this guys stomach while he is saying "Ow, Ouch, Please stop, that hurts" I pull the hero off the patient and tell him its ok to stop. I kneel to start talking to the guy on the ground when mr hero grabs me by the shoulder and shouts directly into my ear "WHAT ARE YOU DOING, HE NEEDS CPR, YOU ARE GOING TO KILL HIM" and the crowd seems to be agreeing with this guy, I calmly inform him that the patient is talking and most certainly does not need cpr and for him to back off so I can work. He goes to push me aside when my 6' 2" 250lb (Think meat head) partner grabs him by the shoulders and physically removes him from the area by carrying him on his shoulder. The crowd quickly dispersed after that and I could actually take care of my patient. He looks at me and says all that happened was he fell and this guy comes flying over a table and starts pushing on his belly while he kept trying to push him off. Mr Hero claimed he was a lifeguard and knew exactly what to do.....
 
Last edited:
Half a semester deep into Orgo Lab, by which time you already know who knows/doesn't know stuff.
Two girls, both always and obviously clueless, were partners for that day and were working in the same hood as I was.
The TA gave a walk through and reminded everyone to keep the bottom layer in the first step.
10mins after
Girl 1: Should we dump the bottom stuff?
Girl 2: I don't know.
Girl 1: Maybe we should dump it?
Girl 2: Yeah.
I was tempted to say something, but I thought it would be unnecessary since they probably would just ask the TA.
NO. They proceeded to dump the bottom layer immediately.
Why would you?!!!

Imagine them going into surgery...:uhno:
 
onceawolverine said:
Pre-med told me that there was no point in starting to think about an MCAT timeline (i.e. when to take the mcat, when to take useful pre-reqs, etc) until Junior year or later because "the MCAT is bound to change again by then."

🙁
Click to expand...

Ahh the old "should never be let into a casino" student. I know them well.

"I'll take Orgo II my senior year, by then it won't be a prerequisite anywhere!" (To be fair, it is no longer a prerequisite a lot of places, but still risky not to take and still tested, to a degree, on the MCAT)

I've heard the above quite a bit actually. Especially about Orgo 2 lab. But I understand the lab part. Labs suck lol.
 
Pusheen said:
I know people who believe that God or a god created some sort of precursor to those animals and/or bacteria and then they evolved and continue to evolve today. I don't think it's terribly unreasonable.

Though there are people who are completely black and white about it, and it's odd.
Click to expand...
There is nothing incompatible with evolution and Aquinas type conception of God (which is what Christian theology is whether Christians know it or not, and they apparently don't), ie a first cause argument. But if you (or "if one denies" I should say) deny scientific facts well I don't think you should even be a doctor.

I knew a premed who was like this and eventually dropped out. You can't study things like DNA and many diseases without that kind of conception. More sad than "funny premed story". It was the only thing stopping her...

EDIT: I always misspell "Acquinas"
 
Last edited:
sat0ri said:
There is nothing incompatible with evolution and Acquinas type conception of God (which is what Christian theology is whether Christians know it or not, and they apparently don't), ie a first cause argument. But if you (or "if one denies" I should say) deny scientific facts well I don't think you should even be a doctor.

I knew a premed who was like this and eventually dropped out. You can't study things like DNA and many diseases without that kind of conception. More sad than "funny premed story". It was the only thing stopping her...
Click to expand...

He actually drew a lot of his first cause points from Aristotle, and "Christianized" them, if you will. And I agree with you.

I do find it irritating when evolution is cited with complete certainty as the first cause/origin of life. It is equally irritating when people (mostly Christians) completely disbelieve the whole concept of evolution just because they don't think it's the first cause.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't end when you get to med school. Overheard a third year student tell urology residents that urology is 3 years of internal medicine --> urology fellowship.
 
sat0ri said:
There is nothing incompatible with evolution and Acquinas type conception of God (which is what Christian theology is whether Christians know it or not, and they apparently don't), ie a first cause argument. But if you (or "if one denies" I should say) deny scientific facts well I don't think you should even be a doctor.

I knew a premed who was like this and eventually dropped out. You can't study things like DNA and many diseases without that kind of conception. More sad than "funny premed story". It was the only thing stopping her...
Click to expand...


/shrug. Christians believe in a lot of things the early Christians and theologians do not think are canon. To the point that the word "Christian" hardly means anything. Aquinas thought that goodness existed outside of God and this pissed a lot of people off but the church accepted it. Aquinas' thoughts most readily apply to the Catholic Church since the Catholic Church actually maintains a canon of theology and the Protestant churches just basically do whatever they want as long as they include Jesus and God in there somewhere.

For example, the afterlife isn't canon. Early Christians and theologians were all materialists and didn't believe in any conception of an afterlife. When you die there is "nothing" and then you awaken again during the resurrection - the literal raising of the dead - just in time for the Judgement and then heaven is literally made in the physical universe for all good people to share in its glory starting then.

Same goes for the conception of hell. Another theology quirk is that everyone born before Jesus went to hell because of original sin. That's why in one of the creeds it says "I believe....." And then when Jesus sacrifices himself "he descended into hell (the Latin uses the term for "inferno") and on the third day was risen infulfillment of the scripture". In Zachariah it is said the messih needs to go into hell to save those good souls that went there before he lived and bring them to the kingdom. In this case it would mean fast forward them to the judgement, since time means nothing for God, or at least that's the canon of the Church.

The soul being something other than material is just a myth too. Again, early Christians were all materialists and they literally thought the soul "acted" on the body to move and they believed this "extension" is what physically connected thought from physical action. Descartes attributed it to the pituitary gland but I know your a fellow philosophy major so you know that story.


We could sit here all day and speak about how most Christians are basically pagan heathens destined to burn in hell for all eternity. That's why I like the Catholic Church. The Nicene crede begins "Credemos" meaning "WE believe". So you can tell a catholic they aren't a catholic but telling a Protestant they aren't a Christian is about as meaningless as a statement can get.
 
FriendlyFH said:
Half a semester deep into Orgo Lab, by which time you already know who knows/doesn't know stuff.
Two girls, both always and obviously clueless, were partners for that day and were working in the same hood as I was.
The TA gave a walk through and reminded everyone to keep the bottom layer in the first step.
10mins after
Girl 1: Should we dump the bottom stuff?
Girl 2: I don't know.
Girl 1: Maybe we should dump it?
Girl 2: Yeah.
I was tempted to say something, but I thought it would be unnecessary since they probably would just ask the TA.
NO. They proceeded to dump the bottom layer immediately.
Why would you?!!!

Imagine them going into surgery...:uhno:
Click to expand...

Were they attractive?...
 
Pusheen said:
He actually drew a lot of his first cause points from Aristotle, and "Christianized" them, if you will. And I agree with you.

I do find it irritating when evolution is cited with complete certainty as the first cause/origin of life. It is equally irritating when people (mostly Christians) completely disbelieve the whole concept of evolution just because they don't think it's the first cause.
Click to expand...
Right, prima movens, I'm familiar.

But why (to the bolded) though? There are few things in science known with more certainty and evidence than evolution (lets avoid the epistemology of empiricism conversation if we can). There are records that predate predate heterotrophs, so if god did create some set of creatures that only after evolved they would have been autotrophs/plants. That just seems so unnecessary and ad hoc. I'm totally fine with a conception of creationist god we he poked a tiny spot that set forth the conditions of the universe, because frankly that seems "meta-empical" to me (though not to Hawkings for example), i.e., is a philosophical not scientific one. (I've heard it descibrided as crumpling up a piece of paper so that when it unfolded you get the signature speckled egg background radiation instead of an isotropic universe). No one is saying evolution is the origin of the physical universe, the "first cause", just the origin of species (wink). Why do you need this "plant god" who created a single-celled plant which we then all evolved from? Doesn't that seem silly? I mean I could be totally misconstruing your position or the one you're representing at least, and do elaborate if so, but I have seem a similar argument to reconcile fundamentalist christianity and the preponderance of evidence for evolution that involves saying god created a set of protocreatures that look like prototypes of animals, but these protocreatures would need to be protozoans and that just seems like an absurd belief to me
 
sat0ri said:
Right, prima movens, I'm familiar.

. No one is saying evolution is the origin of the physical universe, the "first cause", just the origin of species (wink). Why do you need this "plant god" who created a single-celled plant which we then all evolved from? Doesn't that seem silly? I mean I could be totally misconstruing your position or the one you're representing at least, and do elaborate if so, but I have seem a similar argument to reconcile fundamentalist christianity and the preponderance of evidence for evolution that involves saying god created a set of protocreatures that look like prototypes of animals, but these protocreatures would need to be protozoans and that just seems like an absurd belief to me
Click to expand...

But they have, at least in my experience. I was taught this in high school. Ace Khalifa made this point way back when this discussion originated. To be fair, I wasn't very clear about my position back there,but my point stands. This is what I originally was arguing against.

As to your later point, I really don't know where it would be reasonable to say that creation/causation had stopped and evolution had begun. I'm frankly not knowledgeable enough. The farther back we go into evolution, the harder it is to say things with utmost certainty, so it's something I personally am still learning/thinking about.

But yeah, I was mostly pointing out what you said in bold.
 
Pusheen said:
But they have, at least in my experience. I was taught this in high school. Ace Khalifa made this point way back when this discussion originated. To be fair, I wasn't very clear about my position back there,but my point stands. This is what I originally was arguing against.

As to your later point, I really don't know where it would be reasonable to say that creation/causation had stopped and evolution had begun. I'm frankly not knowledgeable enough. The farther back we go into evolution, the harder it is to say things with utmost certainty, so it's something I personally am still learning/thinking about.

But yeah, I was mostly pointing out what you said in bold.
Click to expand...
Hm alright then. I would say that is certainly a misrepresentation of what Darwin set out to say, that is, what is even in the scope of evolutionary biology. However, there is a complicated though tangential issue of whether an ideology defines its subscribers or if subscribers define an ideology (of course the intuition is ideologies should define their adherents, but to push back, do we, for example, typically get graded on what we ought to do, or what we actually did). I guess no one who veritably represents the science of evolution is saying it. If you have to go to such lengths to preserve you're original hypothesis/beliefs, and abandon the most logical conclusions, you might ask why, as a psychological being, you might be compelled to do this.

However, there are fields of science that do undermine a "creation god" (which is where other people might be more grounded in these assertions). For instance, Hawkings says that time and space came into being at the big bang, so it is an invalid question to ask what created it, what is the first cause. I personally don't think this solves anything, because now you have something that created itself (nothing created it, it's the prima movens) and is all-powerful (in that laws of physics are inviolate), so to me, Hawkings just described what we typically attribute to God, without using the word. I'm showing my colors but to end on something neutral, for me, this just confirms to me why philosophy is important--because it can answer questions that empiricism doesn't aim to.
 
Last edited:
sat0ri said:
Hm alright then. I would say that is certainly a misrepresentation of what Darwin set out to say, that is, what is even in the scope of evolutionary biology. If you have to go to such lengths to preserve you're original hypothesis/beliefs, and abandon the most logical conclusions, you might ask why, as a psychological being, you might be compelled to do this.

However, there are fields of science that do undermine a "creation god" (which is where other people might be more grounded in these assertions). For instance, Hawkings says that time and space came into being at the big bang, so it is an invalid question to ask what created it, what is the first cause. I personally don't think this solves anything, because now you have something that created itself (nothing created it, it's the prima movens) and is all-powerful (in that laws of physics are inviolate), so to me, Hawkings just described what we typically attribute to God, without using the word. I'm showing my colors but to end on something neutral, for me, this just confirms to me why philosophy is important--because it can answer questions that empiricism doesn't aim to.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you meant me personally, but I don't feel like I've gone to great lengths or abandoned any logical conclusions, I've merely explained my point and admitted that I don't know all the answers. The only argument I claim to make is the first cause one. I may have misunderstood you though 🙄

Speaking of Darwin, in the last sentence of Origin of Species, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." I don't really have any comments on that, just an interesting point.

And yes, that is the reason I love philosophy. Philosophy and science is such a great combo to study and it's enjoyable to talk to someone who appreciates both.😉
 
Pusheen said:
I'm not sure if you meant me personally, but I don't feel like I've gone to great lengths or abandoned any logical conclusions, I've merely explained my point and admitted that I don't know all the answers. The only argument I claim to make is the first cause one. I may have misunderstood you though 🙄

Speaking of Darwin, in the last sentence of Origin of Species, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." I don't really have any comments on that, just an interesting point.

And yes, that is the reason I love philosophy. Philosophy and science is such a great combo to study and it's enjoyable to talk to someone who appreciates both.😉
Click to expand...
well not you, but if "one" goes to such lengths etc, and you seem to be representing (not necessarily endorsing) the position of that evolution only goes so far back before there was a creation of a Noahs arc of prototypical life which is just so superfluous and ad hoc and a good candidate for ockham's razor. Everything is well and good until americans start incorporating it into public policy.

I'm not sure why you quoted that either but it does capture a few points: Darwin was going out to study the world of Gods creation and funded by the church; the church recently publicly apologized to Darwin (a symbolic gesture); Darwin rarely used the world evolve, except for towards the end. His thing was "natural selection"; he endorses an original ancestor (not a noahs arc of fully formed protoanimals that we diverged from), maybe open to the idea of independent originations (rightfully so as we get closer to replicating original conditions and making primordial biomolecules and as we explore that life might have originated independently on other planets).

And yeah regarding the cosmological argument, if you read again, where I was "showing my colors", I think even when you are attacking a first cause position like Hawkings did, you end up describing the very qualities of God but instead call it the universe.
 
sat0ri said:
well not you, but if "one" goes to such lengths etc, and you seem to be representing (not necessarily endorsing) the position of that evolution only goes so far back before there was a creation of a Noahs arc of prototypical life which is just so superfluous and ad hoc and a good candidate for ockham's razor. Everything is well and good until americans start incorporating it into public policy.

I'm not sure why you quoted that either but it does capture a few points: Darwin was going out to study the world of Gods creation and funded by the church; the church recently publicly apologized to Darwin (a symbolic gesture); Darwin rarely used the world evolve, except for towards the end. His thing was "natural selection"; he endorses an original ancestor (not a noahs arc of fully formed protoanimals that we diverged from), maybe open to the idea of independent originations (rightfully so as we get closer to replicating original conditions and making primordial biomolecules and as we explore that life might have originated independently on other planets).

And yeah regarding the cosmological argument, if you read again, where I was "showing my colors", I think even when you are attacking a first cause position like Hawkings did, you end up describing the very qualities of God but instead call it the universe.
Click to expand...
Ok, we can leave it at that. I disagree that the prototypical life/original ancestor theory is as ridiculous as you make it out to be, but I think we've both presented our sides fully enough. The Darwin quote was to point out that it was actually something he agreed with.

Now I'm just trying to remember a good pre-med story to bring this thread back to the original intent.
 
This isn't a quote but more of an "annoying thing premeds do."

I hate how whenever I'm in a class for the first time and if the professor says something like "tell me a FUN FACT about yourself," 80% of premeds turn it into bragging about some volunteer/research experience like they are in the middle of a med school interview!

Seriously, nobody cares (at least I don't) and you sound like a tool -_- Everything is a competition to premeds sometimes, please staaaahhhhppp!
 
miamiheatfan said:
This isn't a quote but more of an "annoying thing premeds do."

I hate how whenever I'm in a class for the first time and if the professor says something like "tell me a FUN FACT about yourself," 80% of premeds turn it into bragging about some volunteer/research experience like they are in the middle of a med school interview!

Seriously, nobody cares (at least I don't) and you sound like a tool -_- Everything is a competition to premeds sometimes, please staaaahhhhppp!
Click to expand...

I hate how we still have to come up with a "fun fact" in every effing class, even as juniors! No one really cares
 
Watch out for those people who get a blank look and then ask "What do you mean? " when asked this question. I've met people like this.

I hate how whenever I'm in a class for the first time and if the professor says something like "tell me a FUN FACT about yourself," 80% of premeds turn it into bragging about some volunteer/research experience like they are in the middle of a med school interview!


People like this do NOT go to med school!
Two girls, both always and obviously clueless, were partners for that day and were working in the same hood as I was.
The TA gave a walk through and reminded everyone to keep the bottom layer in the first step.
10mins after
Girl 1: Should we dump the bottom stuff?
Girl 2: I don't know.
Girl 1: Maybe we should dump it?
Girl 2: Yeah.
I was tempted to say something, but I thought it would be unnecessary since they probably would just ask the TA.
NO. They proceeded to dump the bottom layer immediately.
Why would you?!!!

Imagine them going into surgery...:uhno:
 
sat0ri said:
Right, prima movens, I'm familiar.

But why (to the bolded) though? There are few things in science known with more certainty and evidence than evolution (lets avoid the epistemology of empiricism conversation if we can). There are records that predate predate heterotrophs, so if god did create some set of creatures that only after evolved they would have been autotrophs/plants. That just seems so unnecessary and ad hoc. I'm totally fine with a conception of creationist god we he poked a tiny spot that set forth the conditions of the universe, because frankly that seems "meta-empical" to me (though not to Hawkings for example), i.e., is a philosophical not scientific one. (I've heard it descibrided as crumpling up a piece of paper so that when it unfolded you get the signature speckled egg background radiation instead of an isotropic universe). No one is saying evolution is the origin of the physical universe, the "first cause", just the origin of species (wink). Why do you need this "plant god" who created a single-celled plant which we then all evolved from? Doesn't that seem silly? I mean I could be totally misconstruing your position or the one you're representing at least, and do elaborate if so, but I have seem a similar argument to reconcile fundamentalist christianity and the preponderance of evidence for evolution that involves saying god created a set of protocreatures that look like prototypes of animals, but these protocreatures would need to be protozoans and that just seems like an absurd belief to me
Click to expand...

sat0ri said:
Hm alright then. I would say that is certainly a misrepresentation of what Darwin set out to say, that is, what is even in the scope of evolutionary biology. However, there is a complicated though tangential issue of whether an ideology defines its subscribers or if subscribers define an ideology (of course the intuition is ideologies should define their adherents, but to push back, do we, for example, typically get graded on what we ought to do, or what we actually did). I guess no one who veritably represents the science of evolution is saying it. If you have to go to such lengths to preserve you're original hypothesis/beliefs, and abandon the most logical conclusions, you might ask why, as a psychological being, you might be compelled to do this.

However, there are fields of science that do undermine a "creation god" (which is where other people might be more grounded in these assertions). For instance, Hawkings says that time and space came into being at the big bang, so it is an invalid question to ask what created it, what is the first cause. I personally don't think this solves anything, because now you have something that created itself (nothing created it, it's the prima movens) and is all-powerful (in that laws of physics are inviolate), so to me, Hawkings just described what we typically attribute to God, without using the word. I'm showing my colors but to end on something neutral, for me, this just confirms to me why philosophy is important--because it can answer questions that empiricism doesn't aim to.
Click to expand...

Pusheen said:
I'm not sure if you meant me personally, but I don't feel like I've gone to great lengths or abandoned any logical conclusions, I've merely explained my point and admitted that I don't know all the answers. The only argument I claim to make is the first cause one. I may have misunderstood you though 🙄

Speaking of Darwin, in the last sentence of Origin of Species, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." I don't really have any comments on that, just an interesting point.

And yes, that is the reason I love philosophy. Philosophy and science is such a great combo to study and it's enjoyable to talk to someone who appreciates both.😉
Click to expand...

sat0ri said:
well not you, but if "one" goes to such lengths etc, and you seem to be representing (not necessarily endorsing) the position of that evolution only goes so far back before there was a creation of a Noahs arc of prototypical life which is just so superfluous and ad hoc and a good candidate for ockham's razor. Everything is well and good until americans start incorporating it into public policy.

I'm not sure why you quoted that either but it does capture a few points: Darwin was going out to study the world of Gods creation and funded by the church; the church recently publicly apologized to Darwin (a symbolic gesture); Darwin rarely used the world evolve, except for towards the end. His thing was "natural selection"; he endorses an original ancestor (not a noahs arc of fully formed protoanimals that we diverged from), maybe open to the idea of independent originations (rightfully so as we get closer to replicating original conditions and making primordial biomolecules and as we explore that life might have originated independently on other planets).

And yeah regarding the cosmological argument, if you read again, where I was "showing my colors", I think even when you are attacking a first cause position like Hawkings did, you end up describing the very qualities of God but instead call it the universe.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares about what is bolded in these quotes.

More premed stories plz
 
Pusheen said:
I hate how we still have to come up with a "fun fact" in every effing class, even as juniors! No one really cares
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was weird to me, as someone who was never a typical pre-med. At the interview, I had to scramble to think of a "fun fact" about myself. I then felt like a bragging douche when I was asked the same question another four times in the same interview day, with only a slight change in audience. It was like every time a new person walked in, they wanted us to all introduce ourselves and give a "fun fact". At the end I was trying to downplay my fun fact to not seem like an a-hole.
 
edgerock24 said:
Nobody cares about what is bolded in these quotes.

More premed stories plz
Click to expand...
This might come as a surprise to you, but by the nature of online forums, anybody could post pre-med stories at any time. I'm sure you need some time to let that sink in considering how complex a thought that must be for you. Me and pusheen had our exchange, we both valued it and said what we wanted to say, anybody could have posted a funny story at any time. Instead, you post dickhead comments like this only prolonging what you claim to dislike. Well done.

We dropped it, why can't you?
 
sat0ri said:
This might come as a surprise to you, but by the nature of online forums, anybody could post pre-med stories at any time. I'm sure you need some time to let that sink in considering how complex a thought that must be for you. Me and pusheen had our exchange, we both valued it and said what we wanted to say, anybody could have posted a funny story at any time. Instead, you post dickhead comments like this only prolonging what you claim to dislike. Well done.

We dropped it, why can't you?
Click to expand...
Just kidding around. No need to be so serious.
 
Have any of you guys been at an osteopathic interview and the person giving the presentation about the school asks if any of us don't know what osteopathic medicine or OMM is? I always get so nervous that someone is gonna raise their hand... Thank goodness it hasn't happened before
 
I've had a few interviewees not know who AT Still was.


Omppu27 said:
Have any of you guys been at an osteopathic interview and the person giving the presentation about the school asks if any of us don't know what osteopathic medicine or OMM is? I always get so nervous that someone is gonna raise their hand... Thank goodness it hasn't happened before
Click to expand...
 
MrLogan13 said:
How is it possible that one can apply to and interview at a DO school but not know who AT Still is? You'd think one would research the field. lol
Click to expand...
I have several friends who were applying this year and didn't know certain MD schools. If I applied to or received a II at a certain school I would be asked by them whether it was an MD or DO school...😱
 
miamiheatfan said:
I have several friends who were applying this year and didn't know certain MD schools. If I applied to or received a II at a certain school I would be asked by them whether it was an MD or DO school...😱
Click to expand...

This is a problem? There are plenty of schools I wouldn't be able to identify as MD or DO.

<-- Silly premed?

I also don't really know who AT Still is.
 
miamiheatfan said:
I have several friends who were applying this year and didn't know certain MD schools. If I applied to or received a II at a certain school I would be asked by them whether it was an MD or DO school...😱
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who applied a couple of years ago told me the story about a fellow interviewee at one of her interviews who clearly mixed up the schools she had applied to. She spent the whole day talking about how much she loved the DO philosophy and how she could really see herself on the campus and that she was so excited to have a DO program so close to home etc.... she was interviewing at an allopathic school. 😱

I agree with @jonnythan , I probably can't pick out all of the MD from the DO schools simply because I didn't research ALL of them. BUT, in the case of the poor applicant above, if you apply to both, you should DEFINITELY know which is which!
 
jonnythan said:
This is a problem? There are plenty of schools I wouldn't be able to identify as MD or DO.

<-- Silly premed?

I also don't really know who AT Still is.
Click to expand...
I applied both MD and DO and HEAVILY did research on where I was applying. I guess that most people don't look into schools as much as I did. I'm giving too much credit, apologies.
 
I taught orgo labs for 3 semesters and you have no idea how often this happens... Then they're graded by yield and get pissed off because their grades were bad!!!

FriendlyFH said:
Half a semester deep into Orgo Lab, by which time you already know who knows/doesn't know stuff.
Two girls, both always and obviously clueless, were partners for that day and were working in the same hood as I was.
The TA gave a walk through and reminded everyone to keep the bottom layer in the first step.
10mins after
Girl 1: Should we dump the bottom stuff?
Girl 2: I don't know.
Girl 1: Maybe we should dump it?
Girl 2: Yeah.
I was tempted to say something, but I thought it would be unnecessary since they probably would just ask the TA.
NO. They proceeded to dump the bottom layer immediately.
Why would you?!!!

Imagine them going into surgery...:uhno:
Click to expand...
 
Gibbward said:
I taught orgo labs for 3 semesters and you have no idea how often this happens... Then they're graded by yield and get pissed off because their grades were bad!!!
Click to expand...


Ever see any reported 600% yields? If so, have the students ever approached you to ask why they had points docked on their reports?
 
beachside said:
Yeah, that was weird to me, as someone who was never a typical pre-med. At the interview, I had to scramble to think of a "fun fact" about myself. I then felt like a bragging douche when I was asked the same question another four times in the same interview day, with only a slight change in audience. It was like every time a new person walked in, they wanted us to all introduce ourselves and give a "fun fact". At the end I was trying to downplay my fun fact to not seem like an a-hole.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The question at the LECOM group interview was "Tell us something interesting about yourself that we won't find in your application!" Well, there is a lot about me that is really interesting, but if I'd wanted to disclose those things, I'm sure that I would have put them in my app.

Happily, that was just one point of several that we were supposed to answer in a short "introduce yourself" monologue, so I glossed over my fun fact. I think I said something about having been raised in the rural South, but having somehow grown up without acquiring the local accent, so that when I was a kid there, people in the town would always ask me where I was *really* from.

It was really a missed opportunity to say something more substantive, but I hate that question so much. I'm worried that I will either redundantly brag about something that I've already shared or else slip and share something too personal that I don't really think is anyone's business. It is hard to hit the right note of interesting and benign. I don't think that this is just a med school interview question, though. I've run into it in various settings where one is expected to give an elevator speech about who they are and where they are from. You'd think I'd be more ready for it, and I was, if they hadn't specified that I couldn't talk about anything that was in my app. That threw me.
 
EParker37 said:
Not a pre-med but still good: Got dispatched to a local whataburger for a CPR in progress. Update enroute that the patient is still unconscious and not breathing per bystanders. We arrive on scene and I grab the jump kit and go inside, I see the crowd by the counter and start gently pushing my way through, I look down to see someone pushing on this guys stomach while he is saying "Ow, Ouch, Please stop, that hurts" I pull the hero off the patient and tell him its ok to stop. I kneel to start talking to the guy on the ground when mr hero grabs me by the shoulder and shouts directly into my ear "WHAT ARE YOU DOING, HE NEEDS CPR, YOU ARE GOING TO KILL HIM" and the crowd seems to be agreeing with this guy, I calmly inform him that the patient is talking and most certainly does not need cpr and for him to back off so I can work. He goes to push me aside when my 6' 2" 250lb (Think meat head) partner grabs him by the shoulders and physically removes him from the area by carrying him on his shoulder. The crowd quickly dispersed after that and I could actually take care of my patient. He looks at me and says all that happened was he fell and this guy comes flying over a table and starts pushing on his belly while he kept trying to push him off. Mr Hero claimed he was a lifeguard and knew exactly what to do.....
Click to expand...
As an EMT and a CPR Instructor, this is my face right now. :wow:
 
miamiheatfan said:
I applied both MD and DO and HEAVILY did research on where I was applying. I guess that most people don't look into schools as much as I did. I'm giving too much credit, apologies.
Click to expand...
There are 141 MD schools in the country. Even if I researched 60 schools and applied to 30, I still wouldn't know the majority of schools, not to mention the other 30 DO schools that exist. I really don't know why one would be surprised in the least. Unless I've heard of the school, or the school's acronym ends with "COM", I probably wouldn't know for certain either.
 
Goro said:
People like this do NOT go to med school!
Click to expand...

Gibbward said:
I taught orgo labs for 3 semesters and you have no idea how often this happens... Then they're graded by yield and get pissed off because their grades were bad!!!
Click to expand...

Most of our labs were not graded based on yield...so some of these students can get decent grades and go on to med school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

loophua
withdrawing from interviews?
Replies
3
Views
658
Moko
Moko
job application
Do I have a less chance of admission if my interview date is much later?
Replies
7
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
lockon7
punctuation for quotes
Replies
4
Views
802
lockon7
lockon7
K
SDN Article: Scribing Basics for Premeds: From Observation to Documentation
Replies
0
Views
765
Kyle Magatelli
K
thinklikeaproton733
How should I explain less than stellar grades due to undiagnosed ADHD?
Replies
10
Views
2K
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
Top Bottom