Geniuses not getting into med school?

[An MD Hopeful]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Bad LORs can also stop a person from getting in, no matter how good the stats. 🙁 I find this very saddening when it happens to people.

 

[Law2Doc]

Even if there is room in the world for radiologists (some of whom are now doing interventions on patients who are awake), pathologists (some of the most collegial people I've ever had the privilege to observe at work)...

Because of their stereotype reputations in terms of introversion, which these fields would generally like to get away from, it's actually probably harder to get into these fields than most others if you are socially awkward -- they are actively screening for this.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
Coming from another point of view, candidates with introvert personalities are unfortunately slighted in the interview process. Communication is essential in medicine, but being kind and to the point doesn't make you a bad doctor. If you can't function under pressure in an interview or you say something offensive that's different, but shy individuals should not be biased against. A pediatric orthopedic surgeon I saw when I was younger was shy, yet a brilliant doctor. Before each question he answered, he would think for a long minute simply because he wanted to go through the answer first before saying it out loud. It was a very awkward pause so he most certainly must have been a terrible interviewee, but overall he was a great surgeon.

communication skills are part of the job. This is a service industry, not a science, at least as it's practiced in the US. So yes, if you aren't able to communicate well you will be a "bad doctor", regardless of how technically skilled or smart or caring you are because you come up short in a very big component if the job description. Just as the guy who is brilliant but doesn't care about patients (eg House) is a bad doctor, or the guy who is very amiable and charming but doesn't know squat will be a bad doctor (but honestly this last category will go further in the field because he possesses one of the more coveted skills). So yeah, try to lose that awkwardness and shyness, because nobody is going to consider you "overall great" or "brilliant" these days unless you can communicate it. The days when you could test well and your career would be set are over.

 

[histidine]

I think too many people overestimate the "social awkwardness" of the top crowd.

In my experience, the reason people don't get in with the top grades is overconfidence with what their grades/scores can do. I went in with top grades and scores 2 years ago. I looked at school averages, and figured I could apply to top schools. I got interviews, but after talking to other interviewees, I knew I wouldn't get in. Someone with average grades but longitudinal research and volunteering will always trump someone with top grades but spotty ECs.

Some of my friends who also had 3.8+s and 35+s got rejected the first time (and who all were not socially awkward). They reapplied the next application season and went from 0 acceptances to multiple acceptances just by spending an extra year doing ECs and applying more broadly.

TLDR: If you have top scores but mediocre ECs and apply to top 20 schools, you'll be scrambling for a job the next year. If that same applicant applied to middle tier schools, he'd be rolling in acceptances.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think too many people overestimate the "social awkwardness" of the top crowd.

I think a more accurate way of putting it is that these people are better at hiding it than others.

 

[gmcguitar4]

I met some damn smart doctors that went to harvard and all those top programs..but the best doctors I know went to low-mid tier schools and they said they had terrible MCAT scores compared to their peers. I know it's only a few people but it has shown me that numbers are not everything!!

 

[Narmerguy]

I met some damn smart doctors that went to harvard and all those top programs..but the best doctors I know went to low-mid tier schools and they said they had terrible MCAT scores compared to their peers. I know it's only a few people but it has shown me that numbers are not everything!!

I'm curious how you're determining "best doctors"?

I would also add that smart doctors can come from any school, the school certainly isn't where they're getting their intelligence from.

 

[WompyWomperton]

I'm curious how you're determining "best doctors"?

I would also add that smart doctors can come from any school, the school certainly isn't where they're getting their intelligence from.

Personally, I know a surgeon who is the head of his department at a top tier teaching hospital (won't tell you where, but very prestigious). He actually went to a medical school in the carribean and worked his tail off to get a descent residency in the US, then worked his tail off to become a great surgeon. When I shadowed said surgeon, he and his colleagues were joking about how even they wouldn't be able to get into their medical school by today's standards (yet they were practicing at the hospital 20 years after medical school). Took me back a bit.

 

[Taranis]

So I am reading this article and the author must be BSing this.

"In fact, one study conducted by the AAMC found that approximately eight percent of applicants with GPAs ranging from 3.80 to 4.00 and MCAT total scores ranging from 39 to 45 were rejected by all of the medical schools to which they applied. On the contrary, the same study revealed that about 18 percent of applicants with GPAs ranging from 3.20 to 3.39 and MCAT scores ranging from 24 to 26 were accepted by at least one school. In this super-competitive medical school admissions arena, you'll need to stand out from the crowd and your extracurricular activities could give you the competitive edge that means the difference between getting in or not."


A 3.8 gpa and 39 mcat should pretty much label you as a genius. I realize that is not the samething as a well rounded person but that means almost 1 out of 10 "geniuses" get rejected from medical school.

Source:
http://www.premedlife.com/1/post/20...l-admissions-committee-wants-to-see_7334.html

Ha, I have a 3.8/39+ and I can assure you I am not a genius, I think that term is used a bit too loosely.

 

[histidine]

The AAMC data does not support the common perception that "geniuses" (ie GPA 3.8>, MCAT>36) may have difficulty getting in. 90% plus get acceptances

Sorry if I was unclear - I never meant that they had a hard time getting in in general. What I meant was that, of those "geniuses" who don't get in, usually it is due to the combination of a lack of ECs and a narrow, top tier school list, contrary to this perceived "social awkwardness" that people seem to associate with students with >3.8.

For example, if I just saw the stats for Columbia, Penn, Harvard, I would think that I'd be competitive there. But, the people who go there also have great long term commitment to volunteering, research, sports, or all of the above. More so than at other medical schools. They truly are looking for the exceptional students in all aspects of their life. So, factoring this in, I would actually be uncompetitive at these medical schools even if my stats aligned.

 

[survivordo]

So I am reading this article and the author must be BSing this.

"In fact, one study conducted by the AAMC found that approximately eight percent of applicants with GPAs ranging from 3.80 to 4.00 and MCAT total scores ranging from 39 to 45 were rejected by all of the medical schools to which they applied. On the contrary, the same study revealed that about 18 percent of applicants with GPAs ranging from 3.20 to 3.39 and MCAT scores ranging from 24 to 26 were accepted by at least one school. In this super-competitive medical school admissions arena, you'll need to stand out from the crowd and your extracurricular activities could give you the competitive edge that means the difference between getting in or not."


A 3.8 gpa and 39 mcat should pretty much label you as a genius. I realize that is not the samething as a well rounded person but that means almost 1 out of 10 "geniuses" get rejected from medical school.

Source:
http://www.premedlife.com/1/post/20...l-admissions-committee-wants-to-see_7334.html

Who knows where these people applied to. If you only apply to 5 schools and interview poorly there is a good chance you're not getting in regardless of scores.

Survivor DO

 

[gettheleadout]

Ha, I have a 3.8/39+ and I can assure you I am not a genius, I think that term is used a bit too loosely.

It's used loosely because it's defined loosely. For example, The New Oxford American Dictionary refers to "exceptional intelligence." There is no reserved limitation of the term genius to a particular part of the population, no matter what metric is used to measure intelligence.

Personally, I take "exceptional" pretty literally and consider genius and geniuses to be quite rare and quite markedly distinguished in some manner from typically intelligent people. I use the term this way because it seems to me to be the superlative for describing intelligence, and only those that would accurately be described by it should be so termed.

I don't believe my level of intelligence (however you want to define or measure that) is in anyway anywhere near that of a genius, and I don't believe I've ever met someone I would consider a genius either. I have no doubt, from what I have heard about people in various fields, that there are nevertheless a good many geniuses alive, and I really hope to meet one someday.

 

[RCPreMD]

this thread makes me feel good

 

[Gut Shot]

The best way it has been described to me: Would you want Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory as your doctor?

however, the AAMC 2010-2012 aggregate data indicates the geniuses are almost always accepted.

GPA 3.8-4.0/MCAT 36-38 = 3150 acceptees/3500 applicants = 90% acceptance rate
GPA 3.8-4.0/MCAT 39-45 = 1255 acceptees/1377 applicants = 91% acceptance rate

I wouldn't classify a 9-10% failure rate as synonymous with "almost always accepted."

 

[Narmerguy]

It's used loosely because it's defined loosely. For example, The New Oxford American Dictionary refers to "exceptional intelligence." There is no reserved limitation of the term genius to a particular part of the population, no matter what metric is used to measure intelligence.

Personally, I take "exceptional" pretty literally and consider genius and geniuses to be quite rare and quite markedly distinguished in some manner from typically intelligent people. I use the term this way because it seems to me to be the superlative for describing intelligence, and only those that would accurately be described by it should be so termed.

I don't believe my level of intelligence (however you want to define or measure that) is in anyway anywhere near that of a genius, and I don't believe I've ever met someone I would consider a genius either. I have no doubt, from what I have heard about people in various fields, that there are nevertheless a good many geniuses alive, and I really hope to meet one someday.

I've met one guy I would consider a genius, and a lot of people that I would consider really really smart. Being a genius is hard to live up to these days though. You could have met multiple geniuses and simply not known it unless there was some realistic way for her/him to demonstrate that to you, which rarely happens.

I wholly agree. Ironically, some of the work I do with admissions and recruitment from multiple medical schools is to help overcome the perception dissuades many good candidates is that you have to be near perfect to get in. We see many 3.5 GPA/ 28-29 MCAT simply not bothering to apply thinking they simply wont be competitive. They certainly have a harder time but certainly not a rarity.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is perception that the "sheldon-like' geniuses dont get in, yet they do over 90% of the time (partly because of my first point).

BTW, this is one of the reasons while there a surge of excellent candidates to DO schools. Students who may have had a tough freshman and sophomore year but then excel in junior and senior may think their lower overall GPA will hold them back from MD. Yet a great upper trend and/or postbacc goes along way.

Sheldon-like geniuses probably don't get in. Just because people with high GPA and MCAT like Sheldon (theoretically) would have doesn't mean the acceptance rate of people in that bracket is indicative of the acceptance rate for people like Sheldon.

 

[mcloaf]

I would say far more get in than people think. How many 3.8+ GPA and 36+ MCAT under grads did you know that had lots of research and awards and you wouldnt trust to watch you cat for a weekend. Yet with 90% acceptance on those stats, some of these students get in.

The idea of all these people with great stats and no social skills is a myth. They exist, and they mostly don't get in. There are plenty of high stat applicants with normal personalities.


Sent from my iPhone.

 

[thefritz]

Unfortunately this black and white thinking never seems to stop and is continuously propagated online.

If your SAT score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into college. Don't even apply. Join the army.

If your MCAT score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into med school. Don't even apply. Try dental school

If your Step 1 score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into specialty x. You must choose from family med or psych or you will not match and your life will be over.

If you finish a residency in x you will automatically be offered a job with "salary" y.

It's irritating how people continue to believe that personality has nothing to do with success. The test prep business has become ridiculous. Schools give their students THREE MONTHS off now to study for step 1. You are supposed to be able to pass this test after the first two years with no review! Thousands of students keep reading this crap and throwing all their eggs into one basket: their test scores. They have no personal interests to speak of besides a couple of TV shows, have never held any sort of real job or had any real responsibility, and have never interacted with someone outside of their own class/culture/age bracket.

Straight out of college, most hiring managers prefer candidates with 3.5 GPAs over those with 4.0s. 4.0 grads typically make ****ty employees. They are entitiled, can't communicate well, are horrible with customers, have no personality, and are virtually un-manageable. Same principle here.

So hey, 25 MCAT student, don't let people get you down. Go for it. But if the reason you have a 25 MCAT is because you spent all of college on your parents dime smoking pot and playing warcraft never leaving your room, don't expect much success. If you worked two jobs during college to pay for it yourself and studied for the MCAT while you were taking care of your sick mother, were a part of the ROTC, and are interesting to talk to, you've probably got a pretty good chance.

 

[mcloaf]

Unfortunately this black and white thinking never seems to stop

4.0 grads typically make ****ty employees. They are entitiled, can't communicate well, are horrible with customers, have no personality, and are virtually un-manageable. Same principle here.

🙄

 

[KnuxNole]

Unfortunately this black and white thinking never seems to stop and is continuously propagated online.

If your SAT score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into college. Don't even apply. Join the army.

If your MCAT score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into med school. Don't even apply. Try dental school

If your Step 1 score is not greater than x, you have zero chance of getting into specialty x. You must choose from family med or psych or you will not match and your life will be over.

If you finish a residency in x you will automatically be offered a job with "salary" y.

It's irritating how people continue to believe that personality has nothing to do with success. The test prep business has become ridiculous. Schools give their students THREE MONTHS off now to study for step 1. You are supposed to be able to pass this test after the first two years with no review! Thousands of students keep reading this crap and throwing all their eggs into one basket: their test scores. They have no personal interests to speak of besides a couple of TV shows, have never held any sort of real job or had any real responsibility, and have never interacted with someone outside of their own class/culture/age bracket.

Straight out of college, most hiring managers prefer candidates with 3.5 GPAs over those with 4.0s. 4.0 grads typically make ****ty employees. They are entitiled, can't communicate well, are horrible with customers, have no personality, and are virtually un-manageable. Same principle here.

So hey, 25 MCAT student, don't let people get you down. Go for it. But if the reason you have a 25 MCAT is because you spent all of college on your parents dime smoking pot and playing warcraft never leaving your room, don't expect much success. If you worked two jobs during college to pay for it yourself and studied for the MCAT while you were taking care of your sick mother, were a part of the ROTC, and are interesting to talk to, you've probably got a pretty good chance.

Who gives their students 3 months off for Step 1(which is WAY more than humanly necessary for that exam)?

It's interesting, because you say the black and white thinking never seems to stop, yet you do the same(as the dude above me points out), bringing on the cycle!

 

[thefritz]

Who gives their students 3 months off for Step 1(which is WAY more than humanly necessary for that exam)?

It's interesting, because you say the black and white thinking never seems to stop, yet you do the same(as the dude above me points out), bringing on the cycle!

Note use of the modifier "typically."

We had up to 70 days to take step 1 after classes ended. A good chunk of the class was skipping class and studying months before those 70 days started. It's absurd.

 

[KnuxNole]

Note use of the modifier "typically."

We had up to 70 days to take step 1 after classes ended. A good chunk of the class was skipping class and studying months before those 70 days started. It's absurd.

I still don't believe that graduates with 4.0s make crappy employees for the most part :/

Same with people in med school you mentioned. That one is easy to disprove. Just open your eyes and literally tons of awesome people 😀

 

[thefritz]

Just anecdotally something i have heard from hiring managers over and over again.

They prefer the 3.5 GPA student to the 4.0 GPA student
They prefer the MS grad to the PhD grad

Sure, the 4.0 guy could just be brilliant, on the football team, and married with kids and goes to church regularly. Or he could cause serious problems because he no history besides test scores. The 3.5 student is a safer bet because he's usually more well-rounded. Not my words, just something I have heard, over and over again by at least 20 different managers.

 

[EmergencyMonkey]

I would always vote for well-rounded over "brilliant". To me, the "brilliant" is often a social leper and doesn't relate well to patients. While they may get along great with some of their social leper, "brilliant", colleagues, they often trade that for poor patient interaction.

___________
visit the monkey at EmergencyMonkey.com!

 

[RosettaStoned]

"Genius"
I'm pretty sure this is being used far too loosely these days.

 

[Narmerguy]

I would say far more get in than people think. How many 3.8+ GPA and 36+ MCAT under grads did you know that had lots of research and awards and you wouldnt trust to watch you cat for a weekend. Yet with 90% acceptance on those stats, some of these students get in.

The idea of all these people with great stats and no social skills is a myth. They exist, and they mostly don't get in. There are plenty of high stat applicants with normal personalities.


Sent from my iPhone.

I have to agree with mcloaf here. Most of the premeds that I know with 3.8+ GPA and 38+ MCAT are the best people I would want, whether it's watching my dogs or my grandmother. There literally is not a single one that I don't think will make a fantastic doctor, or at least better than any other "subset" of students.

The kind of brilliant but socially awkward and weird kids that you're referring to rarely even want to become doctors. You'll see way more of them in PhD programs (like Sheldon) and there's a reason for that. Sorry, but there's no reason to expect those with great stats to be more awkward than the rest of us. In my experience, those that are great tend to be great at a lot of things, and certainly at least average in others.

 

[thefritz]

I would always vote for well-rounded over "brilliant". To me, the "brilliant" is often a social leper and doesn't relate well to patients. While they may get along great with some of their social leper, "brilliant", colleagues, they often trade that for poor patient interaction.
___________
visit the monkey at EmergencyMonkey.com!

EM seems to be one of the fields that gets that. Unfortunately not all do and upcoming interviews worry me. I don't get all these threads on this website about which $4,000 suit should I wear to my residency interview? Yeah, that guy is going to relate to his patients well.

 

[Mel Belle]

EM seems to be one of the fields that gets that. Unfortunately not all do and upcoming interviews worry me. I don't get all these threads on this website about which $4,000 suit should I wear to my residency interview? Yeah, that guy is going to relate to his patients well.

I mean, I'm just wondering... What does being rich and wanting to look go have to do with a person's ability to relate to patients? I'm really curious.

 

[LizzyM]

I mean, I'm just wondering... What does being rich and wanting to look go have to do with a person's ability to relate to patients? I'm really curious.

Medical bills are, and have been for decades, the number one reason people in the US file for bankruptcy.

Can a person who is being impoverished by the cost of medical care (including the cost of insurance premiums) relate to the person is who becoming rich on their misfortune and who dresses the part?

 

[afujiwa3]

Medical bills are, and have been for decades, the number one reason people in the US file for bankruptcy.

Can a person who is being impoverished by the cost of medical care (including the cost of insurance premiums) relate to the person is who becoming rich on their misfortune and who dresses the part?

Oh yeah I forgot. Doctors are evil

 

[NickNaylor]

Medical bills are, and have been for decades, the number one reason people in the US file for bankruptcy.

Can a person who is being impoverished by the cost of medical care (including the cost of insurance premiums) relate to the person is who becoming rich on their misfortune and who dresses the part?

I think that's a little unfair - because when you extend that argument out, then the implication is that physicians should work for only what patients can pay. And for many (most?) encounters, that would be $0, especially in an academic center.

 

[LizzyM]

I think that's a little unfair - because when you extend that argument out, then the implication is that physicians should work for only what patients can pay. And for many (most?) encounters, that would be $0, especially in an academic center.

That's not what I'm saying at all. We know that physician's bills are only a fraction of the cost of medical care (much of that goes to the hospitals, imaging centers, etc, etc) but the doctor is the person the patient interacts with most often and most intimately.

I'm not saying that doctors should not earn a good living but I'm saying that walking in the room wearing $800 shoes, a $4,000 suit and a Rolex watch are not the best way to relate to the patient. Perhaps a physician who likes to dress to the nines should have a "work wardrobe" and an "off work" wardrobe.

 

[yehhhboiii]

That's not what I'm saying at all. We know that physician's bills are only a fraction of the cost of medical care (much of that goes to the hospitals, imaging centers, etc, etc) but the doctor is the person the patient interacts with most often and most intimately.

I'm not saying that doctors should not earn a good living but I'm saying that walking in the room wearing $800 shoes, a $4,000 suit and a Rolex watch are not the best way to relate to the patient. Perhaps a physician who likes to dress to the nines should have a "work wardrobe" and an "off work" wardrobe.

The poor don't want you to look like them. They want you to dress in a suit and go get them food and water.

 

[LizzyM]

The poor don't want you to look like them. They want you to dress in a suit and go get them food and water.

I thought that's what the rich want. And they address you as "waiter!"

 

[yehhhboiii]

I thought that's what the rich want. And they address you as "waiter!"

What makes you think that the poor and rich are so different? We're all human.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm not saying that doctors should not earn a good living but I'm saying that walking in the room wearing $800 shoes, a $4,000 suit and a Rolex watch are not the best way to relate to the patient. Perhaps a physician who likes to dress to the nines should have a "work wardrobe" and an "off work" wardrobe.

Yup, definitely agree with you there. I think someone else mentioned it, but there's a perfect example of this in the allo forum where a guy recommends exactly what you mention for the purposes of residency interviews. I don't begrudge anyone for using their wealth - no matter how they acquired it - how they wish, but there's something off-putting about wearing watches that cost tens of thousands of dollars used and suits that cost nearly $10k when you're a soon-to-graduate medical student. It just strikes me as tacky and inappropriate.

 

[Narmerguy]

What makes you think that the poor and rich are so different? We're all human.

The poor don't want you to look like them. They want you to dress in a suit and go get them food and water.

😕 This is a bizarre line of reasoning you've got going here.

Yes, I think people that flaunt their wealth are off-putting for most people, patients or otherwise. A little common sense and perspective isn't that much to ask of a doctor.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Even if you're socially ******ed, I would think that there is some use for a doctor who is that book smart. Yeah they might be arrogant jerks but they clearly are very good at learning the material.

PhD is a doctor 👍
Go do research in a non-human lab.

 

[yehhhboiii]

It's something that Dr. Paul Farmer said. Anyway, I've never used a physician's sartorical choices to make a judgment about them. I just want them to listen to me, make the right diagnosis and treat me with care.

 

[Mel Belle]

Yup, definitely agree with you there. I think someone else mentioned it, but there's a perfect example of this in the allo forum where a guy recommends exactly what you mention for the purposes of residency interviews. I don't begrudge anyone for using their wealth - no matter how they acquired it - how they wish, but there's something off-putting about wearing watches that cost tens of thousands of dollars used and suits that cost nearly $10k when you're a soon-to-graduate medical student. It just strikes me as tacky and inappropriate.

What about when one actually becomes a doctor? Because that's more of what I meant. Is it wrong to have some Louboutins just because you like them? (And can afford them at that point...) In a sense, I don't see why it matters to a certain extent. Because when patients go in to see a doctor... They already know doctors make good money. I want to dress well when I'm finally in the working world. Fashion is a hobby of mine. Maybe not wearing a diamond-encrusted Versace suit. But dressing in the elegant style I like to and do now. (Except my clothes will probably be expensive instead of looking like it, haha.)

I come from a lower-middle class family full of divorce and financial problems. I'll be able to get through school because of some money set aside from my accountant dad. (He's the only one without financial problems, obviously.) So while I agree with the $4,000 suit and a Rolex thing at a med school interview being too flashy, I don't think you can judge how relatable a doctor is by how they dress in their working life. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to relate to middle class patients. Especially if I don't have the natural arrogance of someone born into money.

As an aside... I question whether someone can tell a suit is $4,000 or $400. It just doesn't seem likely to me that you'll be interviewed by anyone who knows fashion that well... A nice suit is a nice suit. As long as you're not wearing a crappy $7 Good Will leftover you should be fine...

 

[Geebeejay]

I think that's a little unfair - because when you extend that argument out, then the implication is that physicians should work for only what patients can pay. And for many (most?) encounters, that would be $0, especially in an academic center.

I don't think thats the point...you make whatever you make, but there's no reason to flaunt your "fortune" to your patients.

It's something that Dr. Paul Farmer said. Anyway, I've never used a physician's sartorical choices to make a judgment about them. I just want them to listen to me, make the right diagnosis and treat me with care.

but you're not poor...and you're also a medical student. I think what you want and what someone of lower class who doesn't give two craps about medicine is gonna want from their doctor is going to be a bit different.

What makes you think that the poor and rich are so different? We're all human.

This argument doesn't work at all. Mass murderers, child rapists and doctors are all human....does that means they are similar? Not really. That, and the poor and rich are certainly different in that they value and "want" different things.

 

[NickNaylor]

What about when one actually becomes a doctor? Is it wrong to have some Louboutins just because you like them? (And can afford them at that point...) In a sense, I don't see why it matters to a certain extent. Because when patients go in to see a doctor... They already know doctors make good money. I want to dress well when I'm finally in the working world. Fashion is a hobby of mine. Maybe not wearing a diamond-encrusted Versace suit. But dressing in the elegant style I like to and do now. (Except my clothes will probably be expensive instead of looking like it, haha.)

I come from a lower-middle class family full of divorce and financial problems. I'll be able to get through school because of some money set aside from my accountant dad. (He's the only one without financial problems, obviously.) So while I agree with the $4,000 suit and a Rolex thing at a med school interview being too flashy, I don't think you can judge how relatable a doctor is by how they dress in their working life. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to relate to middle class patients. Especially if I don't have the natural arrogance of someone born into money.

As an aside... I question whether someone can tell a suit is $4,000 or $400. It just doesn't seem likely to me that you'll be interviewed by anyone who knows fashion that well... A nice suit is a nice suit. As long as you're not wearing a crappy $7 Good Will leftover you should be fine...

You should do whatever you're comfortable with. If you're working in an underserved area, then what you're describing would be inappropriate. If you're working in an up-scale cosmetic practice, then what you're describing what be perfectly appropriate. In general showing off your wealth - regardless of the situation - is seen as tacky. If you're ok with that and don't care what people think, then I suppose it really doesn't matter.

As far as the final comment, I would generally agree with you but I can generally tell the difference between low vs. average vs. exceptional quality when it comes to things like suits, watches, shoes, etc.. I think you're probably right in that most people won't notice or care, but it's one of those things that seems like an unnecessary risk with absolutely no benefit other than to make yourself feel better.

 

[Geebeejay]

What about when one actually becomes a doctor? Is it wrong to have some Louboutins just because you like them? (And can afford them at that point...) In a sense, I don't see why it matters to a certain extent. Because when patients go in to see a doctor... They already know doctors make good money. I want to dress well when I'm finally in the working world. Fashion is a hobby of mine. Maybe not wearing a diamond-encrusted Versace suit. But dressing in the elegant style I like to and do now. (Except my clothes will probably be expensive instead of looking like it, haha.)

I come from a lower-middle class family full of divorce and financial problems. I'll be able to get through school because of some money set aside from my accountant dad. (He's the only one without financial problems, obviously.) So while I agree with the $4,000 suit and a Rolex thing at a med school interview being too flashy, I don't think you can judge how relatable a doctor is by how they dress in their working life. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to relate to middle class patients. Especially if I don't have the natural arrogance of someone born into money.

As an aside... I question whether someone can tell a suit is $4,000 or $400. It just doesn't seem likely to me that you'll be interviewed by anyone who knows fashion that well... A nice suit is a nice suit. As long as you're not wearing a crappy $7 Good Will leftover you should be fine...

Playing and writing punk/hardcore and death metal music is a hobby of mine, but I'm not going to have an Immolation poster in my office, and I'm not going to have my demos playing over the loudspeaker in my clinic. Your hobbies are your hobbies, and that's great, but they stay away from work. When you're working as a doctor, it's not about you: it's about your patients and doing your job. Everything not required to do your job (personality and possessions) should be left to your personal life.

 

[Lil Mick]

I've known a few people with those sort of stats who weren't accepted anywhere. One had several recent legal/institutional action incidents. Two others applied MD/PhD but didn't have any exposure to the MD side of it. Another applied to only three top ten schools. Lessons: stay out of trouble, do your homework on the profession, and use your intelligence when applying to schools...

 

[Konfidence]

"Geniuses" often don't have any life experiences as they spend every waking moment geniusing in the dark corner of a library. From what I've gathered on the interview trail, medical schools are especially looking for those with certain life experiences, not so much geniuses anymore.

 

[kitsunebito]

Playing and writing punk/hardcore and death metal music is a hobby of mine, but I'm not going to have an Immolation poster in my office, and I'm not going to have my demos playing over the loudspeaker in my clinic. Your hobbies are your hobbies, and that's great, but they stay away from work. When you're working as a doctor, it's not about you: it's about your patients and doing your job. Everything not required to do your job (personality and possessions) should be left to your personal life.

Agreed. I like to game but should I ever get there I'm not wearing a Horde WoW shirt to clinic.