We aren't. We're ahead of any other country when it comes to colleges and graduate schools and research. Why do you think a lot of foreigners want to go train at our colleges? In fact, all the other countries follow America when it comes to treatments in healthcare. Our treatment books are all published in different languages for all the other countries to utilize. Know that we spend more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in research. It is cheaper for the other countries to just...copy us and utilize our ideas. I agree we're behind when it comes to our public school system from elementary to high school, but that's also partly due to the fact the culture. Also, anything monetized "for-profit" in education generally turns into trash. The non-profit places are fine. They just prioritize their spending elsewhere. For example, research or classroom upgrades instead of hiring adcoms. But then, again, for-profit is also what accelerates R&D. Look at all the technology America has invented.
Also, it isn't really that difficult to pick out candidates. At least one school I know of, a computer system ranks the applicants by MCAT and GPA, while a group of adcoms reads through the rest of EC's, PS's, etc. Then they pick candidates which they feel are most qualified and invite them to an interview. What do you think a dedicated admissions team will do differently than what they're doing now?
The process isn't THAT difficult to find applicants who are qualified. It just has a lot of red tape and sheer amount to go through that people generally don't like.
Cutting a researcher's salary, or a professor's salary, or whatever your suggestion is a bad idea. They don't make that much already to start with, considering how long they've worked in their field. A lot of them are not tenured and are supported by their own grants. They also bring money to the school through grants. As I adequately put it, the issue is money. Schools don't have a lot of money to hire a whole dedicated team. You're probably talking about over a million dollars in just salaries they have to come up with. Add their health benefits, school perks, etc, and you're probably talking about $1.5 million extra they need.
Again, this is different for every school, but you're making it sound like adcoms are not good at their jobs. There's always a pro and con, and schools are always finding ways to balance out their finances.
Also, the point is, you need to show yourself to be better than other applicants. Why should an adcom choose you? The best way to do it is not just "passion and motivation." You need good grades and a good MCAT on top of those too. Medicine is already a very competitive field. Gunners will be everywhere, even in other countries in highly competitive fields. This isn't just limited to America.
I guess I've been a little bias in my statement, for personal reasons. We value numbers so much in such an honorable field that it's cringeworthy imo. I'm sure you understand many of the variables that play in undergrad. That the MCAT can be learned. That classes like music, art history, history, or any gen Ed has no relation to medicine but still determines competence is silly. Looking back, sure those classes can teach some new general information and different ways to study etc. but it promotes lazy thinking. It promotes one to go for the grade and not for the learning. That may be a persona issue for me but I think it's true. Many pre meds does WHATEVER it takes to get good grades, most fall into the trap of memorizing and not understanding. Relating back to the MCAT, what differs this test from any other test. It still can be learned. Anyone with half a brain and motivation can learn it.
Explain how replacing a foreign researcher who can't speak English with a regular teacher is a bad idea.
Explain to me why a scientific researcher being underpaid with mandatory teaching requirements would not go into medicine. Nowadays.
I propose a theory that if we are the leading country in professional academics, it is because of the money. Not that we have the most brightest students, statistically that would be China and India, but because we have the capability to fund it, which is why they are here.
I read in one of my classes that the only thing that schools look for is memory/ analytics. Now obviously there are other factors that contribute to being a good worker. Idk something annoys me when u determine people by 2 numbers, and where a checklist of pre med to do lists are available, where you just gotta "do it".
Oh and a school can hire a dedicated team. A public school would have around 1000 staff? While graduate schools have like ~200? Cut like 10k for any duty and that would be a lot of money, enough to hire a team of 10-20. If high school to college has it why wouldn't college to graduate school have it, it would sound more logical.
Undergrad follows a certain pattern that works for all classes. Memorize.(level 1 class). Memorization and scientific problem solve (level 2 class). If you understand what's going on why does someone have to spend 4 years to prove to some people that they are "good enough". Doctors out there, honestly how much undergrad do you apply in your profession. Physics Orgo? Chem bio I get. Idk for some I can definitely see how undergrad can be tedious when one could be doing more productive things.
Essentially you guys are giving us the easy way out. Telling us the facts to regurgitate it. Requires no thinking or how to think. As a matter of fact don't think. Just Do as I say, and you will be on your way. master test taking and following directions.
Decided to take some 400 level physics courses but got D's? Bad boy. Decided to take the easy way out and get A's? I love A's good boy
I'm sure there are many creative and innovative leaders in the field of medicine after 8 years of thinking that way.
What about a program in undergrad for medicine of 8 years or even 6. Directed solely for medicine with more application, practicality, and a specialty in innovative research? Let the weeding work itself the same way. Schools will still make tons of money. I mean honestly, is this the best way to create the best doctors? Or are we all just lying to ourselves. I see some bright students who really know how to efficiently maximize their time and work optimally but when you look outside yourself and at the curriculum is this the best we got? Hey, as long as we're happy right?
Premed. The master of the hit it and quit it.
Eh, maybe I'm just being a little bitch. Idk. Enjoy the discussion though thanks for the insight
I'll have to ask a few of the adcoms at my school, but it's my impression that they are largely a dedicated group of volunteers, but I could very well be wrong. The student interviewers are volunteers that do it because they want to help pick the new class though. As students, we can't actually override a given person in the interview, but we can provide our impression of a candidate and how well we believe they'll fit in. Personally, I was far too busy with other projects to do interviewing this year, and I'm too much of a softy for it anyway, but the ones that did it really seemed to enjoy it.
